on tv, or a special site somewhere?
Sometimes them guys are fulla shit.
Sorry, raftpeople.
Make that RaftPeople.
Well, they revisit myths, and occasionally show they were wrong about something. Any specific examples you are talking about?
It’s been a long time, but the one about the cell phone igniting gasoline. Gas has a very specific air/gas ratio, and they didn’t do anything to monitor it.
I’m sure that cell phone can’t ignite gas, but they didn’t prove it.
I’ve been hoping to find their shows on my rabbit ears, but no luck so far. 
I’m fairly certain that they mentioned several times about having the optimum fuel/air mixture.
Mebbe so, but but I don’t recall them saying anything it, nor did I see anything to measure it. The ratio is supposed to be something around 14/1, iirc, and I don’t remember them saying that.
Anyway, I got a kick out of the show and I’d like to some rebuttal. I know a lot of fans have called them to task for some of their conclusions.
I think I’ll call ion tv and tell them they should carry the show so I can get it on my DTV rabbit ears.
I think I might find some “dissent” on their web page, if they have one.
They don’t always get it right but I’m not sure I understand your criticism. Firstly while gasoline certainly will combust optimally at a particular ratio to air, so what? It will combust at a lot of other ratios as well. Secondly, IIRC they simply tried to emulate the circumstances under which the myth was supposed to have occurred. If the ratio wasn’t reached, then it wasn’t.
They did have a gas sensor up and did try to get it to optimum. They had it on for both small and large scale tests. With the small scale they would add fuel until they met the right ratio, with the large scale they had fans which they could turn on and off to try and fiddle with it a bit more (or to clear the chamber.) Maybe they edited out the talk about the sensors in the TV version, but the DVD version almost definitely has it (though I’ll have to confirm when I get home.)
But overall they’ve had pretty poor luck with gas sensors because usually the mix varies by location in the chamber and the sensor is often not representative of the majority.
Also, I’ll note that there is a Mythbusters forum on the Discovery.com site.
They’ve done several “revisit” episodes due to feedback that they get from people on their message boards, saying “you idiots, you didn’t take into account [this] or [that]!”
I saw the forum, but don’t have time right now to explore it. Sleepy time for this old dude.
I did see it on tv, and I tend to miss chunks of programs.
And I’m not looking to criticize it. Not negatively. anyway. they do so much horsing around that sometimes it’s hard to tell when they’re actually doing science.
Personally, I think they are highly irresponsible and heavy in the pants as a a collective group for their representation of “authoratative science”. It’s like a couple of horror movie kids who lucked out in movie FX got their own show and populated it with their own little entourage of cool geeks who are highly amused by exposions and destruction. It’s about as juvenile and irresponsible as science gets. Their scientific method is shoddy, it’s exploitive, speculative, “scientific”, entertainment. Exploitation, speculative, and shoddy are the key words.
Man, I wanted to link to zombie Feynman.
They have never, ever claimed to be doing “authoritative science.” They do sciencey experiments with the goal of reproducing the facts of a myth. And often the result is that something explodes. They often consult real-live scientists to help them design their experiments, too.
They have the balls to admit when they commit a major screwup, or just when hordes of interwebs dweebs think they did, and they often go back and take another look at myths from previous episodes.
I went to a Mythbusters event in my town and the emcee asked them what scientists influenced them and Adam replied “Indiana Jones.” That shows you quite clearly where they are coming from. Although Jamie’s wife is a science teacher.
Actually, I think the key word is “entertainment”. The primary purpose of the show is to entertain, and Adam and Jaime make no secret of the fact that they’re SFX guys and not professional scientists.
Real professional science experiments generally involve long periods of tedium that probably wouldn’t make for good TV.
Pish tosh. What Zombie Feynman said. If the only single thing that the average person gets out of Mythbusters is: “If something is suggested to you, at least try to test it out by actually doing it, not by idly speculating about it, philosophising about it, or believing what someone tells you they heard about it” then they will have done a stupendous amount for the cause of rational thinking and science.
Rigour amongst scientists is essential, but support for the basic mode of thought behind science amongst the general populace is just as important.
Whoa!
Somebody woke up the egghe… I mean intellectuals. 
Thank you for jostling my brain so it kicked this back out. I’d buried that movie deep, but you had to go and dig it up. Thankx.
who like to play (Some do. Really!) and can get along, add a few good lab rats, and I think you’d have the makings of a pretty good show. They could take an episode from the mythbusters and apply “real” science to it.
Anybody who doesn’t think nerdy scientists and their minions can be funny hasn’t worked around labs.
I can even see a semi-friendly rivalry developing.
Yeah, I’d say their science behind Do Pretty Girls Fart really stunk, and Can You Light a Fart lacked substance.