The first ep I saw was of the soldier marched in step and collapsing a suspension bridge. I thought it was the worst experiment I’d ever seen, and hated the show for some time. But eventually, I chilled out and decided to look at it as an entertainment show (which I think the cast does, as well) and from that perspective, it’s pretty fun.
you are totally missing out, man!
They sexyed her up for a photo shoot on the mentho’s-diet coke myth. Does anyone know what magazine that was? Did they further pursue the issue (if you know what I mean)?
A little more cable and you might have a shot with the red hot red headed chicks. Just sayin’
That Mythbusters show is a sham scientifically.
They are movie special effects duffers without any scientific input to their procedures.
About as reliable as a science fair project.
FHM, I think.
The second statement, at least, is demonstrably false. Very often you see them interviewing and taking advice from an expert in the field, sometimes a physicist, sometimes an explosive expert, sometimes something else. There certainly is, on at least several occasions, expert input to their efforts. This does, indeed, make it as reliable as a science fair ptroject, with the believability and accuracy determined by how much expert input they get, combined with their own savvy.
Sometimes they don’t get the advice – my personal peeve, because it treads in my area of expertise, is the Archimedes Mirror thing. Their method of alignment was too crude, and they declared as “Busted” something that others have successfully duplicated at least three times.
The myth is that the doping compound was wholly responsible for the fire, and that the hydrogen had nothing to do with it. This theory was advanced by Bain in his paper. They showed that to be false.
I didn’t see any evidence that the dope contributed at all to the disaster. 2 things they could have done were, 1) as mentioned earlier, compare a cotton-alone model with a doped model, and 2) repeat the small-scale test on the cotton samples. I remember reading a paper refuting the Bain paper in which they tested samples and found that cotton alone actually burned faster than doped cotton. The doping compound actually retarded the fire in that test! Makes me wonder if the results the Mythbusters got, where only the formula used on the lower half of the Hindenburg burned faster than cotton alone, was just an anomaly. They didn’t really explain why the aluminum oxide alone (lower half of craft) would make the sample burn twice as fast, yet when combined with the other ingredients (upper half of craft), didn’t burn faster at all.
On the large scale test, they said they observed a thermite reaction taking place, but they didn’t have any evidence as to whether the burn rate was faster than it would have been with no dope present.
I don’t think so. The burning materials make the flame more visible, but that doesn’t mean it’s burning faster.
They might need to revisit this one to answer the question: Did the dope contribute to the fire? Even though that wasn’t the original myth, it’s a good question.
Sorry, I think I should have said aluminum powder, not aluminum oxide.
And one they answered at the very end of the episode. They feel that their tests demostrated that the dope did indeed contribute to the fire.
The unanswered question about the Hindenberg is not how did the fire spread but how did it start.
Maybe. But they really should have done an additional test, with just hydrogen and non-doped fabric. I predict we’ll see this myth revisited.
Could you please cite this, Cal? I’d love to read more (about the sucessful replications, that is)…
Thanks!
Aliens. With a blowtorch the size of a tank.
The Archimedes Mirror myth wasn’t that you can use mirrors to focus the sun’s rays and thereby set wood on fire. It’s pretty clear that you can. The Mythbusters themselves demonstrated that. The myth is whether Archimedes could have potentially built a gigantic array of mirrors to defeat the invading Roman fleet at Syracuse. They pretty much busted that one.
This one I’m sure will be revisited. Much like the Archimedes mirror or the arrow splitting experiment people who didn’t pay attention to what they were testing will complain.
There have been a lot of attempts to duplicate Archimedes mirror. No one has ever succeeded with an accurate replica Roman ship on the water with bronze era materials at the kind of range that would be necessary. All of the successful proofs (the MIT people who appeared on the revisit and the one from the seventies are the two that I know of that at least made an attempt to match the scale) did not duplicate several of these factors. Inevitably they used stationary targets of easier to burn material that was not wet with mirrors and arrays of modern materials.
True, but I think that’s beyond the scope that these guys are capable of.
*THEY * predicted it will be re-visited at the post-credits “teaser.”
I just feel sorry for the camera operator in that bit where they were puzzling over why the doped fabric test piece didn’t burn, and it erupted in a thermite reaction a couple inches from the guy without any warning.
I can’t imagine what the haters think of Braniac. Talk about abusing the scientific method!
I had to figure out what Brainiac is- turns out it’s a British show very similar to Mythbusters, only zanier (based on my interpretation of the Wikipedia article.) Apparently, the show has faked the results of an experiment on at least one occasion.