Mythbusters - "Hurricane Windows"

[Christopher]

wouldn't building it to code mean that actual methods and materials used rather than the size?

Of course. Did I ever say anything to imply otherwise? There have been multiple experiments where they've built miniature houses or parts of houses, and they've always built them to code. And since houses come in many different sizes anyway, I think it goes without saying that building to code has nothing to do with size.

 

[Marc]

wouldn't building it to code mean that actual methods and materials used rather than the size?

Of course. Did I ever say anything to imply otherwise? There have been multiple experiments where they've built miniature houses or parts of houses, and they've always built them to code. And since houses come in many different sizes anyway, I think it goes without saying that building to code has nothing to do with size.

no you didn't but I was more responding to trekker4747 who was.

 

[Christopher]

Just to clear this up: the "code" in "built to code" is the building code that specifies the minimum acceptable safety level for construction. A house that's built to code is one whose materials, construction techniques, wiring, plumbing, etc. are all at least as sturdy, reliable, and safe as the law requires.

So if a house's roof is more securely attached than normal, that's going beyond the requirements of the code, so it still qualifies as "building to code," and then some.

 

[Trekker4747]

Just to clear this up: the "code" in "built to code" is the building code that specifies the minimum acceptable safety level for construction. A house that's built to code is one whose materials, construction techniques, wiring, plumbing, etc. are all at least as sturdy, reliable, and safe as the law requires.

So if a house's roof is more securely attached than normal, that's going beyond the requirements of the code, so it still qualifies as "building to code," and then some.

Yeah, and we all know that contractors go above the miniumums in construction.

 

[Christopher]

^Anyway, I'm not sure if the objection about the roof is relevant here, since the test was specifically about the effect of open windows versus closed windows, not generally about what really happens to a house in a hurricane. If the house had been built so that the roof tore off in seconds, then the status of the windows would've been a moot point and they would've gotten no data on the thing they were actually testing.

 

[Trekker4747]

True, dat.

But as noted above my you, myself, and others the myth, as I've always heard it, is with tornados and the pressure difference inside the house and inside the tornado. For as long as I can remember it seemed in hurricanes people were always boarding up their windows.

 

[Christopher]

But tornadoes throw up tons of debris too, so it wouldn't be that much different; windows would be just as vulnerable to breakage (which would render the open-closed question moot). The only difference is that with tornadoes, you don't have enough advance warning to board them up. You just need to get as far away from them as possible.

Also, a normal house isn't nearly airtight enough that there'd be any major risk of the house blowing apart from the pressure differential.


Now, there are some pervasive tornado myths that it might be nice to see debunked. The main one is the one you see in movies and cartoons all the time, the assumption that a tornado doesn't affect something until the actual funnel cloud touches it -- or more to the point, that the funnel cloud is the entire tornado. Actually it's just the visible vortex in the center of the much larger cylinder of swirling wind that constitutes the whole tornado, like the vortex that forms in a draining bathtub. There are intense winds circulating for quite a distance around the funnel cloud, and lots of debris hurtling at deadly speeds.

But then, that's not the only case where movies and TV assume that air doesn't exist and that only something you can actually see can hurt you -- like the pervasive myth that you're safe from an explosion as long as you remain outside the fireball. Independence Day had that ridiculous scene of the dog in the freeway tunnel jumping into a closet just a second before the flames overtook it, as though convective and radiative heat didn't exist. Not to mention all the shows and movies with people standing near molten lava without being harmed, even though the air would actually be hot enough to set them on fire where they stood.

 

[Trekker4747]

But tornadoes throw up tons of debris too, so it wouldn't be that much different; windows would be just as vulnerable to breakage (which would render the open-closed question moot). The only difference is that with tornadoes, you don't have enough advance warning to board them up. You just need to get as far away from them as possible.

Oh, believe me, I know and agree.

Also, a normal house isn't nearly airtight enough that there'd be any major risk of the house blowing apart from the pressure differential.


Now, there are some pervasive tornado myths that it might be nice to see debunked. The main one is the one you see in movies and cartoons all the time, the assumption that a tornado doesn't affect something until the actual funnel cloud touches it -- or more to the point, that the funnel cloud is the entire tornado. Actually it's just the visible vortex in the center of the much larger cylinder of swirling wind that constitutes the whole tornado, like the vortex that forms in a draining bathtub. There are intense winds circulating for quite a distance around the funnel cloud, and lots of debris hurtling at deadly speeds. I'm just saying I had never heard the windows myth associated with hurricanes.

But then, that's not the only case where movies and TV assume that air doesn't exist and that only something you can actually see can hurt you -- like the pervasive myth that you're safe from an explosion as long as you remain outside the fireball. Independence Day had that ridiculous scene of the dog in the freeway tunnel jumping into a closet just a second before the flames overtook it, as though convective and radiative heat didn't exist. Not to mention all the shows and movies with people standing near molten lava without being harmed, even though the air would actually be hot enough to set them on fire where they stood.

What's also more absurd about the ID4 scene is that the fireball doesn't enter the little side-room, the fireball just woooshes right by it.

And word on the lava thing. After seeing the movie "volcano" oh so many years ago that's one of the things my buddy and I joked about afterwards that the firefighters, etc. were just standing on the otherside of the k-rail (spraying water into the air over the lava in some dumb-assed attempt to cool it off) with molten rock on the other side of it.

 

[davejames]

The whole thing seems like kind of a cheat, though; I mean, if they had an arborist right there on hand, then they must've talked to her beforehand and should've already known that pine trees are adapted to freeze without serious damage. And I'm surprised that, given that fact, they didn't repeat the experiment with a tree from more tropical climes, something that isn't evolved to be freeze-proof.

Well for a lot of these myths I'm sure they've done enough research or consulted enough people beforehand to know what the results will be. At least for the more obvious, common sense myths.

But I'm fine with that. It's still cool to see them tested anyway.

 

[Christopher]

^But it's kind of silly the way they edit it, making it look like they went ahead and did the test without knowing what would happen and only then had an expert just happen to wander by and tell them it would never have worked for a very simple reason. I think that in earlier seasons, they were more honest about it, showing the Mythbusters consulting the experts first and getting their assessments, and then doing the actual tests to confirm or refute the analysis.

 

[Trekker4747]

The "expert" was cute.


Just saying.

 

[the 4th hanson bro]

Discovery also should be reminded that they're a cable channel and can sho whatever they please so they didn't need to not show us the results of one of the pig-head tests or the Jason footage for our benifit.

Besides, Mythbusters is a show that's very popular with children. So obviously they're choosing to limit their content for the benefit of younger viewers, just as they've been doing for most of the series' run.

I'd prefer that they keep limiting what they show so that I can continue to watch it with my kids -oldest is 8.