MYTHBUSTERS 2015 Season Thread
- Thread starter Christopher
- Start date
After the last couple gimmicky high profile eps, it was cool seeing them get back to some simple, old fashioned myths again.
The window pane one was particularly interesting (and gruesome). I didn't really expect that someone would get sliced cleanly in half by the falling tempered glass, but it was surprising to see just how much damage it DID do to the dummy (yikes!). And I do think Adam and Jamie dismissed the idea a little too quickly, since real people aren't made of a rubbery gelatin mold that bounces back to normal after being struck like that. At the very least, it looks like that glass would leave a pretty massive gouge in someone.
As for the lawnmower myth, it was pretty cool seeing the way they determined that the force of the rock actually exceeded that of a bullet. I'm not a physics expert so don't know if their technique was really the most accurate to use, but it sure looked convincing anyway. And was not the result I expected at all. Of course, given how incredibly dangerous the lawnmower blade itself is, I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that it could create other dangers as well.
And Jaime's lawnmower from hell was just insane. I can definitely understand why they decided not to retry after seeing how the blade broke free and tore across the grass. Even behind safety glass, I think I'd be nervous as hell around that thing!
The window pane one was particularly interesting (and gruesome). I didn't really expect that someone would get sliced cleanly in half by the falling tempered glass, but it was surprising to see just how much damage it DID do to the dummy (yikes!). And I do think Adam and Jamie dismissed the idea a little too quickly, since real people aren't made of a rubbery gelatin mold that bounces back to normal after being struck like that. At the very least, it looks like that glass would leave a pretty massive gouge in someone.
As for the lawnmower myth, it was pretty cool seeing the way they determined that the force of the rock actually exceeded that of a bullet. I'm not a physics expert so don't know if their technique was really the most accurate to use, but it sure looked convincing anyway. And was not the result I expected at all. Of course, given how incredibly dangerous the lawnmower blade itself is, I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that it could create other dangers as well.
And Jaime's lawnmower from hell was just insane. I can definitely understand why they decided not to retry after seeing how the blade broke free and tore across the grass. Even behind safety glass, I think I'd be nervous as hell around that thing!
Well, it wouldn't have smooshed it quite so badly if it had had a skeleton. Although there would be plenty of broken bones.
The whole point of ballistics gel is that it reacts to impacts and penetrations in the same way that human flesh does. Besides, having a skeleton would've made it even harder for the blunt edge of the tempered glass to slice someone in two. I was actually surprised that they didn't include a skeletal analog in their dummies.
Although it's interesting to see that they've updated their technique and added a fibrous outer layer with the resistance of skin. That's something I've often wondered about, whether a skinlike layer would make a difference.
Anyway, I'm not convinced the mythic scenario could ever have happened without guide wires to keep the glass vertical. If it's even slightly off vertical as it falls, then air resistance would cause it to tumble. And once it tumbled, it'd probably rock back and forth like a falling leaf and would be unlikely to return to a fully vertical orientation. So it'd be an incredible fluke if it stayed vertical all the way down. Maybe if it fell from a lower floor, it would hit the passerby before it started to tumble, but it would hit with commensurately less force.
It would've been nice if, instead of just going right to the guide-wire solution, they'd done a small-scale test to see if it was even possible for the glass to fall without tumbling.
I actually found that part a bit annoying, since the only tool they needed to determine that was math. They showed the equation right there on the screen. Kinetic energy is (1/2)mv^2, so if the rock had twice the mass of the bullet, it would've only needed to have 1/4 the speed to have the same impact energy (all else being equal). But I guess punching numbers into a calculator isn't as TV-worthy as building a big swingy gadget and shooting things into it.
It's not really that hard to exceed the kinetic energy of a typical bullet, because their mass is so low. But they're also kinda sharp, concentrating their force on a very small area. A larger object may have more kinetic energy, but distributed over a wider area, so it wouldn't exert as much pressure on any one point and wouldn't be as likely to penetrate. This is why I said "all else being equal" before. If the rock were big enough or bluntly enough shaped, it might hit with the equivalent kinetic energy of a bullet, but not penetrate as deeply or do as much damage. So there are other variables they didn't really address, because they were more interested in building scary machines.
A good episode.
The falling glass myth:
I'm guessing there's some real-world basis for which they concluded the falling tempered glass was lethal. I don't think anyone would want to be struck by it and I doubt you'd shrug it off but I'm dubious if it'd be lethal. The glass would shatter once it struck you so it'd post little risk on cutting you severely so the only danger would then be from the trauma of the impact which can go either way between lethality, injurious or leaving you in the hospital in a life-threatening condition.
But I don't recall them saying anything about the genesis of the story or if it had a real-world basis, or if they had done any math to conclude the impact was severe enough to cause critical damage. I missed parts of the introductory segments as I was preparing dinner while watching.
But it's not surprising the glass didn't fall down "like a guillotine" since things just don't fall that nicely in ideal conditions. I figured the glass would waver a bit until finding a "balance" (likely flat) and fall that way. So I was thinking up in my mind of a much more "guillotine-like" rig which is what they more-or-less came up with.
The plate glass' results were unsurprising given the properties of a plate glass and even though a skeleton would make all of the difference in the world when it comes to being cut into two parts, being struck by such a piece of glass would be deadly. I actually would be curious if it'd be able to slice through some of the thinner bones in the body.
I suspect going into it they knew the glass wasn't going to fall neatly but went with those tests anyway in order to show the science of it in order to -in the show- justify needing to build the rig. (Which they've been taken to task before on jumping right to a rig as opposed to testing the real-world conditions.)
The lawn-mower stuff was pretty interesting too and it's not too surprising that the rocks were potentially lethal when flung by the blade. I was always taught that before you mow you scout the area to ensure there's no hard objects (like rocks) around for just this reason. Not only would it damage the blade or mower but it creates a danger.
And Jamie's machine was utterly horrifying. The slo-mo footage of the blade shearing off and going off on it's own is utter terrifying and how it cut through the blade's baffle I think speaks a lot as to the damage it could have done.
The way they tested in the shop the various aspects of the myth was pretty interesting as well including...
How many times over the course of the show have we seen them do a practical test as opposed to just "doing the math." Pretty much all of the physics-related myths they've done could have all be solved with math. Hell, with a lot of creative math, calculations and such the speed of the bullet-vs.-rock probably could have been solved with math.
But as we're told often on this show and, as you yourself have said, sometimes seeing speaks louder than knowing the math. It'd be easier to throw the calculation on the screen and say "the math says the rock would go just as fast, if not faster, than the bullet." But it means more to see the rig and see the transfer of energy in a practical way, it's more dramatic. Not only does it make for better TV -as you said- but it shows that irrefutably the point. Throw some equations up there that's beyond the average viewer's understanding or acceptance that those equations are irrefutable facts and people have doubts, "sure the MATH says it, but in reality..."
Now, maybe they could have had Adam do the equations and say, "The physics says that this rock would have just as much, or more, of an impact as this bullet would have. But here at Mythbusters we like to see things for ourselves just to see how true that is; so I'm going to build a rig to put Newton to the test."
But, when it comes down to it; seeing really is believing. I would have accepted the math, you would have accepted the math; many of us would have accepted it. But it's just a lot cooler to see the math at play. It's more satisfying to see a rock move the pendulum as far as the bullet moved it than to see the result of some equations.
I think the back-half of this new season has a lot better feel to it. The first batch of episodes were all mostly tie-ins and goofy. Fun, but goofy. I mean, Simpson's myths? (Though the cherry bomb stuff was sort-of cool.) But this current crop of episodes feels a bit more "old school" and nicer. Similar to very first season of the series with just Jamie and Adam.
Let's all just be thankful we don't live in a comic-book universe and Jamie is an evil, tech-based, villain. Or we'd all be screwed.
The falling glass myth:
I'm guessing there's some real-world basis for which they concluded the falling tempered glass was lethal. I don't think anyone would want to be struck by it and I doubt you'd shrug it off but I'm dubious if it'd be lethal. The glass would shatter once it struck you so it'd post little risk on cutting you severely so the only danger would then be from the trauma of the impact which can go either way between lethality, injurious or leaving you in the hospital in a life-threatening condition.
But I don't recall them saying anything about the genesis of the story or if it had a real-world basis, or if they had done any math to conclude the impact was severe enough to cause critical damage. I missed parts of the introductory segments as I was preparing dinner while watching.
But it's not surprising the glass didn't fall down "like a guillotine" since things just don't fall that nicely in ideal conditions. I figured the glass would waver a bit until finding a "balance" (likely flat) and fall that way. So I was thinking up in my mind of a much more "guillotine-like" rig which is what they more-or-less came up with.
The plate glass' results were unsurprising given the properties of a plate glass and even though a skeleton would make all of the difference in the world when it comes to being cut into two parts, being struck by such a piece of glass would be deadly. I actually would be curious if it'd be able to slice through some of the thinner bones in the body.
I suspect going into it they knew the glass wasn't going to fall neatly but went with those tests anyway in order to show the science of it in order to -in the show- justify needing to build the rig. (Which they've been taken to task before on jumping right to a rig as opposed to testing the real-world conditions.)
The lawn-mower stuff was pretty interesting too and it's not too surprising that the rocks were potentially lethal when flung by the blade. I was always taught that before you mow you scout the area to ensure there's no hard objects (like rocks) around for just this reason. Not only would it damage the blade or mower but it creates a danger.
And Jamie's machine was utterly horrifying. The slo-mo footage of the blade shearing off and going off on it's own is utter terrifying and how it cut through the blade's baffle I think speaks a lot as to the damage it could have done.
The way they tested in the shop the various aspects of the myth was pretty interesting as well including...
How many times over the course of the show have we seen them do a practical test as opposed to just "doing the math." Pretty much all of the physics-related myths they've done could have all be solved with math. Hell, with a lot of creative math, calculations and such the speed of the bullet-vs.-rock probably could have been solved with math.
But as we're told often on this show and, as you yourself have said, sometimes seeing speaks louder than knowing the math. It'd be easier to throw the calculation on the screen and say "the math says the rock would go just as fast, if not faster, than the bullet." But it means more to see the rig and see the transfer of energy in a practical way, it's more dramatic. Not only does it make for better TV -as you said- but it shows that irrefutably the point. Throw some equations up there that's beyond the average viewer's understanding or acceptance that those equations are irrefutable facts and people have doubts, "sure the MATH says it, but in reality..."
Now, maybe they could have had Adam do the equations and say, "The physics says that this rock would have just as much, or more, of an impact as this bullet would have. But here at Mythbusters we like to see things for ourselves just to see how true that is; so I'm going to build a rig to put Newton to the test."
But, when it comes down to it; seeing really is believing. I would have accepted the math, you would have accepted the math; many of us would have accepted it. But it's just a lot cooler to see the math at play. It's more satisfying to see a rock move the pendulum as far as the bullet moved it than to see the result of some equations.
I think the back-half of this new season has a lot better feel to it. The first batch of episodes were all mostly tie-ins and goofy. Fun, but goofy. I mean, Simpson's myths? (Though the cherry bomb stuff was sort-of cool.) But this current crop of episodes feels a bit more "old school" and nicer. Similar to very first season of the series with just Jamie and Adam.
Let's all just be thankful we don't live in a comic-book universe and Jamie is an evil, tech-based, villain. Or we'd all be screwed.
If anyone could successfully pull off being a tech-based supervillain, it's Jamie Hyneman.
And as he plunges the hero into his elaborate deathtrap, he cackles and gloats, "There's your problem!"
Dr. Robotnik/Eggman from the Sonic games could almost work as a Jaime supervillain.
http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/Dr._Ivo_Eggman_Robotnik
Yeah, the first thing I thought when they wanted to determine impact energy was "there's math for that". Hell, I think even I have a book of ballistic tables somewhere, leftover from my long-abandoned ammo reloading hobby. But you're right that a demo device is more TVgenic.
For the glass drop, when I saw the dummy compress and squeeze, I wondered if a skeleton would have provided the resistance needed to actually allow the glass to slice it. By that I mean, the gell dummy may have been too flexible for the glass edge to bite, but with a skeleton holding its shape, it wouldn't have been able to absorb the energy by compressing.
For the glass drop, when I saw the dummy compress and squeeze, I wondered if a skeleton would have provided the resistance needed to actually allow the glass to slice it. By that I mean, the gell dummy may have been too flexible for the glass edge to bite, but with a skeleton holding its shape, it wouldn't have been able to absorb the energy by compressing.
I guess my problem isn't with the fact that they used a physical demonstration, it's with the way they introduced it. They said something like, "If only there were a way to compare the energies," as if building the rig were the only way to do that. Like you, my instantaneous reaction to that was "Do the math!" Granted, they did show the equation onscreen a few moments later, but it was just that initial choice of words that sounded silly.
I don't think the tempered glass would ever have sliced it under any circumstances, because it's designed not to do that. The impact of that flat edge would have a crushing effect, not a cutting effect. And once the tempered glass hit a hard, resistant surface like bone, it would've shattered into itty-bitty non-sharp pieces like it's designed to do. Which would've probably absorbed a lot of the impact energy and reduced the damage it did. They don't call it safety glass for nothing.
I can attest mowers can cause damage.
Just before my cousin retired and was conclude her roommate arrangement with me, she wanted to help me "straighten up" my lower den (a carport "walled in" to become an interior room). She called for me and pointed out I had a broken window. A softball sized hole was positioned in the lower pane of glass, shards scattered upon the carpet. Among the silica based debris was a short length of wood, a thumb sized section of a twig. Being wood, it was rather lightweight. But circumstantial evidence suggested what happened.
there's no way such a piece of wood could have broken the window simply by falling from the tree and then "bouncing" against the glass. No, it had to be propelled. But I doubt even thrown, it could have broke the window like it did, unless the person was a skilled high speed baseball pitcher. And if you're intending to break a window, a rock would be far more effective...and emotionally satisfying. No, the odds are my lawn man's mower "caught" that twig, by accident, and flung it with enough force to smash the window.
Sincerely,
Bill
Just before my cousin retired and was conclude her roommate arrangement with me, she wanted to help me "straighten up" my lower den (a carport "walled in" to become an interior room). She called for me and pointed out I had a broken window. A softball sized hole was positioned in the lower pane of glass, shards scattered upon the carpet. Among the silica based debris was a short length of wood, a thumb sized section of a twig. Being wood, it was rather lightweight. But circumstantial evidence suggested what happened.
there's no way such a piece of wood could have broken the window simply by falling from the tree and then "bouncing" against the glass. No, it had to be propelled. But I doubt even thrown, it could have broke the window like it did, unless the person was a skilled high speed baseball pitcher. And if you're intending to break a window, a rock would be far more effective...and emotionally satisfying. No, the odds are my lawn man's mower "caught" that twig, by accident, and flung it with enough force to smash the window.
Sincerely,
Bill
When I was a teen, my Dad accidentally broke a taillight on my 1965 Corvair with a rock thrown by our lawn mower. Not long after that he was helping the local PD/FD set up an exploding car safety demo in a local gravel pit (he himself was ambulance corps). He saw the car was a Corvair! He told everybody "Wait a minute! Hold the demo!" while he grabbed a screw driver, and removed the taillight to replace my broken one - from a car loaded with dynamite. I guess once you've been thru WWII, nothing much phases you. How cool was my Dad!
So the video where Adam Savage talks about his experience flying in the U-2 has finally been posted. For those who are impatient, Adam starts talking about the experience at around the 9 minute mark.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltBl0ZdDluI[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltBl0ZdDluI[/yt]
Surprised no one has posted on this yet. I suspect Christopher has stuff going on this weekend and is otherwise occupied.
Thought it was another good episode, this current batch is really holding up to the "spirit" of the show without relying on some-kind-of tie-in.
The phone-myth was interesting especially since I recently got a car that syncs with my phone allowing for hands-free conversation. But I don't use it, or my phone, much while driving and I've always heard the notion of the conversation being the problem and not the holding of the phone.
What I'd like to see them do next is look into why phone conversations are such a problem as opposed to in-car ones, since we hardly hear of "distracted while driving" problems when it comes to in-car conversations.
And I have my suspicions on why this is the case -passengers can gauge road conditions and know when to clam up or why a conversation may lull for a moment, a person on the phone isn't going to be aware of road conditions. Conversation can also sometimes have something of a "visual" component in hand motions and such which may make conversation easier that'd obviously be impossible over a phone.
Interesting how they eliminated any bias when it comes to learning the course. But I'd argue it eliminated any possibility of doing a "Control" unless it's supposed to be a given Jamie and Adam are good enough drivers, or the test so simple, they would have aced it without any distractions whatsoever.
The simulator set-up was hella-cool
The driving in reverse thing wasn't too surprising. Big one being that I knew the car in reverse wasn't going to have too good a top-speed. Thinking about it, it'd likely not be any faster than a staying in first gear, which it seemed like their test-car topped on in R within the range of first-gear.
And as they said, driving in Reverse pretty much throws everything off about how you learn to drive and control the car as well as reversing the way the car steers (i.e. the wheels that turn the car now being in the "back" rather than the front which, as pointed out, sort-of causes the car to want to do a 180.)
It was surprising on how "easy" it was to master driving in reverse. Got to hand it to their driving "expert."
The course at the end also seemed wickedly fun and cool to do.
Good episode, keep it up Jamie and Adam!
Thought it was another good episode, this current batch is really holding up to the "spirit" of the show without relying on some-kind-of tie-in.
The phone-myth was interesting especially since I recently got a car that syncs with my phone allowing for hands-free conversation. But I don't use it, or my phone, much while driving and I've always heard the notion of the conversation being the problem and not the holding of the phone.
What I'd like to see them do next is look into why phone conversations are such a problem as opposed to in-car ones, since we hardly hear of "distracted while driving" problems when it comes to in-car conversations.
And I have my suspicions on why this is the case -passengers can gauge road conditions and know when to clam up or why a conversation may lull for a moment, a person on the phone isn't going to be aware of road conditions. Conversation can also sometimes have something of a "visual" component in hand motions and such which may make conversation easier that'd obviously be impossible over a phone.
Interesting how they eliminated any bias when it comes to learning the course. But I'd argue it eliminated any possibility of doing a "Control" unless it's supposed to be a given Jamie and Adam are good enough drivers, or the test so simple, they would have aced it without any distractions whatsoever.
The simulator set-up was hella-cool
The driving in reverse thing wasn't too surprising. Big one being that I knew the car in reverse wasn't going to have too good a top-speed. Thinking about it, it'd likely not be any faster than a staying in first gear, which it seemed like their test-car topped on in R within the range of first-gear.
And as they said, driving in Reverse pretty much throws everything off about how you learn to drive and control the car as well as reversing the way the car steers (i.e. the wheels that turn the car now being in the "back" rather than the front which, as pointed out, sort-of causes the car to want to do a 180.)
It was surprising on how "easy" it was to master driving in reverse. Got to hand it to their driving "expert."
The course at the end also seemed wickedly fun and cool to do.
Good episode, keep it up Jamie and Adam!
Yup, I've been at the Shore Leave convention. Hopefully it'll be on my DVR when I get home tomorrow.
I failed my high school driver's ed test because I was distracted by my friends (I use the term loosely in one case) making noise in the back seat. I went right through an intersection without even noticing the stop sign.
Yeah with the phone myth, it does seem like an awful lot of it should depend on the kind of driving you're doing, which they did try to address in their tests. If you're just driving down the freeway or down a street you drive every day on the way to work (and know like the back of your hand), I imagine it would require a bit less attention than if you're driving downtown or in some insane city like SF with all it's crazy street layouts and pedestrians roaming everywhere.
Not to mention that the vast majority of phone conversations people have are probably a lot more casual and don't require the kind of mental concentration that Adam and Jamie required from their test subjects.
That said, I think they proved pretty well that hand's free driving certainly has the potential to be just as distracting as hand's full, which is all they were really trying to figure out.
Not to mention that the vast majority of phone conversations people have are probably a lot more casual and don't require the kind of mental concentration that Adam and Jamie required from their test subjects.
That said, I think they proved pretty well that hand's free driving certainly has the potential to be just as distracting as hand's full, which is all they were really trying to figure out.
In reflecting on this episode, I was reminded of how much thinking I did on the road while driving to and from Baltimore for the Shore Leave convention this past weekend. On my drive out, I came up with a premise for a new story. On my drive back, I did a lot of thinking about a potential new project I was offered the chance to do. That required a lot of mental attention and concentration. But I didn't find myself unduly distracted from driving, perhaps because freeway driving is relatively straightforward. When I was driving on surface roads (why do they call them that??), dealing with intersections and lights and turns and GPS directions and such, I was concentrating exclusively on driving.
And the result doesn't surprise me at all. I just don't answer the phone when I drive, period. (Although sometimes on the freeway, I do distract myself from the road by checking the GPS or the weather radar on my smartphone, or by getting my water bottle out of my bag, or whatever. I wish I had a copilot/navigator to handle that for me, and to take turns at the wheel.)
By the way, today I went to my local garage to do a bit of followup on some maintenance they did, and it was a tight squeeze to get out to the street again past the various parked cars, so I tried backing up using the technique that Adam and Jamie learned -- turning sideways in the seat and positioning your head along the centerline while keeping one hand on the wheel. But it didn't work as well for me as it did for them, since I didn't have a good enough sense of which way to turn the wheel in order to veer in a given direction. I was coming close to bumping into a parked car when I gave up. I ended up returning to the back of the shop and doing a tight three-point turn in the limited space available, so that I could drive out forward.
It just goes to show that the reverse-driving technique only looked easy for Adam and Jamie because they're already accomplished stunt drivers. I can't even parallel-park worth a damn. I'm just lucky I didn't get overconfident about the power of the technique.
It just goes to show that the reverse-driving technique only looked easy for Adam and Jamie because they're already accomplished stunt drivers. I can't even parallel-park worth a damn. I'm just lucky I didn't get overconfident about the power of the technique.
One thing that annoyed me is the lack of a control test in the driving simulator. They set up a difficult course with things like bicyclists merging into you. There was only one successful run in each test. That's (arguably) more difficult than the real world. We don't know how many people would have failed the simulator without being distracted.
Similar threads
