Sign in / up

back to article MythBusters: Savage and Hyneman detonate truthiness

They've built working crossbows using rolled up newspapers, shot frozen chickens at airplane windshields, and tried to paint a room using dynamite. They say their crowning moment was actually floating a lead balloon, disproving the old cliché. And when their 2011 season debuts Wednesday night in the US, they'll determine whether …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

          1. Naughtyhorse
            Reply Icon

            close but no cigar..

            started out encouragingly... yep a parabolic reflector would be good, then blam you completely fuck it all up with " if you apply pressure whilst polishing a flat surface you will induce a very slight curvature."

            how much pressure, in what direction, for how long, on what thickness of substrate, youngs modulus of which is what?. cos you get any number of curves, only one of which will be parabolic.

            (i'll give you a mulligan on the 'bond a bolt to the back of a mirror' - we'll assume cyano acrilates were avaialable to the greeks and they did have the capability of producing _perfectly_ flat sheets of glass or reflective metal with a _totaly_ uniform cross section.... ho hum)

            but im afraid "The focal length of a parabolic mirror does not change its effective concentration" is pretty unforgivable. the POINT of a parabloic reflector is that it takes the energy impinging on the whole surface and delivers it to 1 point - the focus (same ammount of energy over a smaller area), passing beyond the focus the reflected beam diverges, therefore dissapating the energy, so that at a point that is as far from the focus on the opposite side from the reflector will see exactly the same concentration of reflected energy.

            to reitterate: The reason this didnt work for mythbusters, or archimedes is that the whole thing is bollocks.

            QED

            1 2
            1. Anonymous Coward
              Reply Icon
              Anonymous Coward

              Read that again.

              "The focal length of a parabolic mirror does not change its effective concentration [of energy], the surface area is the only variable that determines the amount of light/power that is collected and focused. so a parabolic mirror with a 50cm focus produces the same power [amount of energy] at the foci, as a [mirror with a] focal length of 10M."

              I think you must have misread what I wrote. as your point is the same. The area is important, the focus is where all the energy goes, the energy delivered to the focus is the same for same size [Area] mirrors irrespective of the focal length.

              "how much pressure, in what direction, for how long, on what thickness of substrate, youngs modulus of which is what?. cos you get any number of curves, only one of which will be parabolic."

              Metal Mirrors have been hand made since way before newton in the 1660's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_telescope_making#Mirror_making)

              Which of these 'technologies' was not available to the Greeks?

              To reiterate: It didn't work for Mythbusters because they are idiots. It can be done and if you (or the mythbusters) give me a budget and an audience I would proove it.

              0 0
    2. JEDIDIAH
      Reply Icon
      Linux

      Well...

      ...certainly neither one of them is an Archimedes or DaVinci.

      That's something to consider when the mythical work of an ancient genius is seemingly debunked.

      That doesn't necessarily invalidate the effort.

      Although I've always thought that having a group of well disciplined soldiers might be a factor in putting together a Sicilian death ray.

      0 0
  2. SuperTim
    Thumb Up

    Compulsive Viewing.

    I love mythbusters. As much for the fact that it may be the best job in the world, I like that it is realistic(ish), I know it isn't the most scientific of shows, but it does attempt to be real-world about a lot of stuff, and it also peer-reviews itself. They are not afraid to retest something when prompted by viewers pointing out flaws. Also, How clumsy are Adam and Tore? They seem to get hurt a lot, which is always worth a giggle.

    Top notch edutainment, and better than watching Vic Reeves not being funny.

    2 0
    1. Tom 13
      Reply Icon

      Actually, I'd say it is one of the MOST scientific shows out there.

      The present the myth (hypothesis), outline the testing method, run a small scale test, refine the hypothesis, complete the full scale test, and review the results with one of three possible outcomes, two of which are exactly the same as what scientific work is, the other of which can be considered to roughly correlate to "needs more testing" which is your third scientific outcome.

      This show probably does more to entice young people into science than any 10 years of government grants ever has.

      6 0
  3. Steve 48
    Thumb Down

    Yawn..........

    Theese guys annoy me to hell - apart from the oh-so-obvious poor scripting and execution of the script, most of their experiments wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. They tend to run their tests based on very narrow assumptions that have been tailored to give the answers they want, then claim that a myth is busted based on absence of a "sucess"; also much of the "science" they base their experiments on is wrong. At least with Brainiac they got the right mix of tongue-in-cheek, eye candy, presenters and assorted explosive materials.

    2 17
  4. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    Getting Tired

    They did the Hitler bomb in a previous episode. They've run out of new "myths" and are now following the tried and tested TV route of repeats, ie: flogging a dead horse.

    Mythbusters is entertainment, not science, and these guys are not "awesome".........dude!

    2 9
  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Zombie Feynman would go hungry on a diet of Mighty Spang brains...

    http://xkcd.com/397/

    2 0
  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Forget all that...

    ...What the hell is Savage wearing in the photo with the plane, and where can I get a set for when I'm on my Fireblade?

    0 0
    1. bubba-bear
      Reply Icon

      Parachute jumper drag

      I believe that is a suit used by parachute jumpers, and should be available from a purveyor of parachute jumper suits; they tend not to use custom made gear.

      It is not a Mister S item, which they commonly use as a source for leather and rubber fetish gear. The strangest store I have seen them go to was a place that specializes in underwear -- of all types, shapes, and sizes.

      0 0
  7. Lars Silver badge
    Grenade

    Entertaining

    Entertaining, but just too many weapons.

    1 4
    1. bubba-bear
      Reply Icon
      Grenade

      (untitled)

      One can never have too many weapons.

      4 1
      1. Naughtyhorse
        Reply Icon

        IF IN DOUBT...

        C4

        1 2
        1. Ian Stephenson
          Reply Icon
          Flame

          @Naughtyhorse

          I disagree...

          Thermite is the answer.

          1 0
          1. Naughtyhorse
            Reply Icon

            oooh yes forgot....

            thermite on solid co2!

            yay

            1 1
      2. Lars Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Pint

        @bubba-bear

        That was my opinion too as a child.

        0 1
  8. Geoff Johnson

    Another PC myth

    On the IT front, they (well actually the other team on the show I believe) also tested whether a laptop in a bag can stop a bullet.

    1 0
    1. Maty
      Reply Icon

      dumb ...

      What calibre at what range?

      A laptop will stop a .25 at short range. (Heck, at over 15 feet a tough canvasbag will probably do the job). On the other hand, a Barrett firing a .416 will go through a stack of the things from a kilometer away.

      0 0
  9. juice

    Science or entertainment...

    I've always found Mythbusters to be very hit-and-miss when it comes to being scientific - it's first and foremost an entertainment show and the "experiments" they design are done with this in mind, even when the myth could be busted with a quick hand-waving explanation. Similarly, a lot of their assumptions are very constrained and/or ignore key points.

    To be honest, I actually prefer Brainiac (give or take the oddly nasty bits hosted by Charlotte Hudson) - it's a lot more contrived (and occasionally faked), but it feels like there's more science and interesting facts tucked away behind the exploding caravans...

    1 1
  10. Naughtyhorse

    has to be said....

    am i missing and eyebrow???

    best ever show

    3 1
  11. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    And magnesium cases...

    Somebody (not them) had some NEC magnesium cases lying around and wanted to find out if heated enough they would burn *fast* (or if they were really magnesium, pick one). They did. There's the closest IT angle I could get, except it was no myth, the cases were real magnesium, and if heated enough, they do burn up really fast.

    And the CD drive was spun with a air compressed hose blowing a small turbo (when they wanted to deliberately see what it takes to destroy a drive). It could be not accurately measured with the RPM reader they had, which could read 100k rpm or such. And the metal sheet covering all CD drives is totally justified, and proved in their lab. The drive is destroyed, that sheet was warped and dented, but few bits of the blown CD ever escaped the cover. Plus the CD drive should be safely installed within a PC case anyway, which would further prevent injury.

    I personally like their method: On the conditions described in the myth, they recreate it. If the conditions fail to reproduce the myth, they go the extra mile to force the myth event happening.

    The myth of a car skipping through a lake surface like a pebble while doing 70mph (with a flat sheet of metal covering the bottom of the car, mind you) was so satisfying to watch, it just aired here.

    0 1
  12. Tim Jenkins

    "whether a laptop in a bag can stop a bullet"

    Myth: A laptop can stop a point-blank blast from a shotgun.

    "Using a 12-gauge shotgun, the Build Team fired a load of birdshot at a 4-year-old laptop in a leather bag from point-blank range, with a block of ballistic gelatin behind it to stand for the owner’s body. The birdshot easily punctured every area of the laptop that was hit and damaged the gelatin severely. In a second test, they targeted the battery – the component with the highest density – and found that none of the pellets would go through it. The team classified the myth as plausible, since only a very lucky shot would be stopped"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%282010_season%29#Episode_154_-_Mini_Myth_Madness

    0 0
    1. Stevie
      Reply Icon

      Bah!

      Another reason to eschew the thin-batteried iPad in preference to a standard lappy.

      Wrapped in Kevlar.

      0 0
  13. Stuart Gepp
    Headmaster

    Bust this!

    "Each bang has been bigger than its successor"

    Are the bangs really getting bigger as time goes backwards?

    0 0
  14. CaptSmeg
    Stop

    Is science a rude word???

    I have disagree with many of the above posters. The methodological, experimental search for truth? This is science! My problem is they and many others don't like to use the word. I guess it would damage their viewing figures?

    Don't get me wrong I love this show, I just wish they would add the odd plug for something I love so much.

    Insert redundant rant concerning modern fashion to be anti science

    0 0
  15. 42
    WTF?

    I never understood

    How anyone could be entertained these two F%#$@%wads. Watched half an episode and thought this is rubbish

    1 7
  16. James O'Shea

    The ultimate Mythbusters episode

    it's got explosions. It's got science. It's got _ponies_.

    <http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/1824681/Mythbusters+and+My+little+pony/>

    1 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like