Mythbusters

[The Chronicler]

For this week's episode, the team-test myth was to build a personal rig that could allow a person to climb a seven-story wall using only the suction power of two household vacuum cleaners, and the individual-test myth was that someone with no flying experience could land a small airplane thanks to instructions from ground control. And at the end of the episode, another contestant was sent home, so now only five remain.

[ADFan185]

This one is going to be very interesting to see looking forward to it

[The Chronicler]

For this week's episode, the team-test myth was to build a spy car gadget that could obscure the windshield of a pursuing vehicle, and the individual-test myth was that in a terrifying situation you could relax yourself by singing. And at the end of the episode, another contestant was sent home, so now only four remain. In addition, next week is apparently the finale, so at the end of that final episode, we will finally find out who exactly will become the new hosts of Mythbusters.

[ADFan185]

This is getting to be very exciting can't wait to see who wins.

[Sneak]

currently rewatching all possible episodes. Now I'm on 7th season

[ADFan185]

I watch them on tv they always do reruns

[The Chronicler]

For this week's episode, the team-test myth was if an inmate could escape prison by holding onto a faulty water heater when it explodes and shoots upwards and then deploying a crude parachute to land safely, and the individual-test myth was to build something that could allow someone to walk on water using only duct tape and life vests.

And now we have seen the final episode of The Search, and the new hosts of Mythbusters have been selected.

(spoilers)
The new hosts of Mythbusters will be Brian Louden and Jon Lung.
(end spoilers)

Since this announcement was apparently revealed live last night, I guess this means it'll be quite a while before we see anything new on Mythbusters. Regardless, I will certainly be looking forward to what this reboot of Mythbusters will be like.

[ADFan185]

Awesome let's hope the new hosts do good just like these guys did. And they're just as entertaining as the old hosts where also.

[The Chronicler]

I recently found out that the new Mythbusters series will begin on November 15. Remember, this will be on the Science Channel, not Discovery like the old show. I'll definitely be looking forward to seeing the new show (and its new co-hosts), along with all the new myths they'll test.

[Longneck3050]

I recently found out that the new Mythbusters series will begin on November 15. Remember, this will be on the Science Channel, not Discovery like the old show. I'll definitely be looking forward to seeing the new show (and its new co-hosts), along with all the new myths they'll test.

Sounds interesting.

[The Chronicler]

The first episode of the new MythBusters series was on last night. My reviews here are going to be a little different compared to the older episodes, now that I know how to hide spoiler text.

If you put your feet up on the dashboard and the car gets into a crash, would the typically life-saving airbag end up killing you?
They tested two versions of this myth; feet up on top, and feet resting against (supposedly, the second version would have a better chance of pushing the knees into the face to make it lethal). They first did shop tests with traditional crash test dummies in a stationary vehicle with the airbag remotely set off, then they used "syndavers" (very realistic human analogues) in real cars that were then crashed at a modest speed. The results were that despite some rather brutal leg injuries, the crash would still be survivable. Busted.

As seen in some movies, is it possible to cut through someone so swiftly that the hacked-off part stays perfectly in place for a moment, as if to give a pause for dramatic effect?
With some training from an expert, they begin by swinging a sword at some targets, but it's soon clear that human speeds just aren't going to be enough. They build a sword-swinging robot that is able to double the best human speed, but it's still not enough. They then decide to ramp it up by building a rocket sword; a rig of small rockets on a straight track to push a sword blade forward as quickly as possible (I'd say that set-up is kinda like a horizontal guillotine). But not even that is a swift enough cut to result in the target staying in place. Busted.

As for the new hosts, while they are obviously not Adam and Jamie, I do find them quite entertaining in their own ways. I'll definitely be looking forward to the rest of this season.

[Sneak]

I don't think would watch it. Because I still don't even have a time to finish watching my old marathon! XD
I predict new show doesn't have old chemistry...

[The Chronicler]

For this week's episode...

If a burglar gets stuck in the chimney and then someone lights the propane fireplace, will the resulting explosion send the burglar shooting high into the air?
After determining the ideal mixture of air and fuel to get the most explosive result, they then built a full-scale chimney and firebox. Then, Buster was brought back into action and stuffed into the top of the chimney. But when the gas was ignited, Buster was pushed up only a few inches. They then ramped it up by filling the chimney with pure oxygen instead of air, but the bigger explosion ended up completely obliterating the chimney, leaving Buster to fall straight down. Busted.

If a hunter shoots a bullet into a tree and then years later a logger cuts through that tree with a chainsaw, will the bullet get flung out at lethal velocity?
They started by determining the speed of the chainsaw teeth and then building a rig that could show the how the chainsaw and bullet would interact. Next, getting a bullet to end up inside a log turned out to be surprisingly difficult and they ended up needing a very wide log to finally get what they needed. Once they figured out where in the logs the bullets ended up, they then used the rig. A standard chainsaw was able to launch the bullet, but nowhere close to a lethal speed. They then ramped it up by inviting a competitive logger with a super powerful chainsaw (built around a motorcycle engine). The bullet launched by that chainsaw may be fast enough to cause a minor injury, but still not lethal. Busted.

[The Chronicler]

Almost forgot about my weekly review here.

For this week's episode...

Can a "Dutch oven" (a sleeping bag filled with fart stench) become explosive if ignited?
First, they built different rigs to catch the gases they would emit, then ate various foods known to cause gas. After collecting their samples, an expert examined the types of gases they consisted of and it was determined that for the experiment, the two they would test for explosiveness would be either 100% hydrogen or a mixture of 80% hydrogen with 20% methane. There was little difference in the size of the explosions, not even when they made the samples a half mixture with air, but eventually they settled on pure hydrogen because it had a slightly less burn time than the addition of methane, thus defining it as more like an explosion. In the full-scale test, a realistic volume of gas did nothing, and to get the explosive result of the myth, they needed so much gas that a single person simply couldn't fart that much at all. Busted.

If a neglected water heater falls over in an earthquake and then explodes, would it rocket sideways through a wall and then punch a clean hole through an RV?
They started by testing with bottle rockets to see if a sideways launch would be any different than a vertical launch. Although a sideways launch would start with the water mostly on one side, the momentum of launch was able to quickly push it all to the bottom to behave like a normal vertical launch, plus without gravity acting against it, it was able to launch much faster sideways that it did vertically. Out in the field, they tested with a smaller water heater to see if it would launch sideways, and despite destroying the launch rig, it worked. Finally, for the full scale test, they built a garage, parked an RV next to it, and then added a rig into the garage that would tip the water heater sideways just before it would explode (to simulate the earthquake part of the myth). Despite a few issues with the rig, they successfully got the water heater to explode and launch sideways out of the garage, but it was instantly stopped when it slammed right into the chassis of the RV. Despite the underwhelming result, they concluded that if the water heater was at a slightly different trajectory and the garage and RV were at different heights, then it was possible that they could have gotten the result of the myth (and opening the possibility of revisiting this myth later). Plausible.

[The Chronicler]

First of all, a certain development has recently occurred for me that could make watching this show a little problematic. Basically, my family had apparently switched to a more affordable cable package, and it was only sometime a few days ago that it took affect, and the Science Channel unfortunately turns out to be one of the channels I can no longer watch. Thankfully, the Science Channel website offers live streaming of some certain shows, and I'm very glad that MythBusters happens to be one of them, but since it requires signing in with a TV subscription, I don't know if even this solution will continue working for me. At least if that fails, there are other ways I could watch it online at a later time, though it could mean I may have to post my reviews later in the week.

Anyway, onto this week's new episode.

Can a 2lb Asian Carp (an invasive species in North American lakes and rivers) jumping out of the water hit an unfortunate water skier right in the head with enough force to kill him?
After calculating the horizontal speed of a carp jumping out of the water and adding it to the average speed of a water skier, they determined that they would need to have their fish analogue hit Buster's head (with his neck designed to be just as strong as a normal person's neck) at 35 mph. The first rig they attempted as a slingshot type turned out to be impractical, so next they tried a simple air cannon and eventually got the air pressure just right to shoot their 2lb fish analogue at 35mph. They then did the final test out on a lake, and although it took a few shots, they eventually got one to hit Buster right in the face, and based on the indicators placed within his neck, it was definitely a fatal break. Confirmed.

Does listening to aggressive music (like heavy metal rock) cause you to drive more aggressively?
After determining the best way to measure a person's tendency for aggressive behavior, they then set up a driving course in an abandoned neighborhood with numerous obstacle intending to provide as much frustration as possible. Then they got five volunteers and tested their baselines (three had low tendency for aggression, one had moderate tendency, and one had high tendency), then the volunteers drove through the course twice, once with calm music and once with aggressive music. Once the results were in, the people with low tendency for aggression had almost no change in how they did the course, while the people with moderate or high tendency had done the course notably more aggressively with the aggressive music. Therefore, while aggressive music won't impact everyone, it will have an effect on those who already have a higher tendency for aggression. Plausible.

[The Chronicler]

Three myths were tested in this week's episode, each of them based on scenes from certain movies.

As seen in one of the Borne movies (I forget which one), can a fire extinguisher be used to shoot a nail at a bad guy?
After testing the three types of fire extinguishers, only the CO2 provided any thrust. After removing the nozzle, they realized that if the flow regulator is removed, the entire set-up looks just like in the movie. In addition, the removal of that flow regulator results in substantially greater thrust. However, once they started to actually try shooting a nail from it, the projectile was so uncontrollable that it took dozens of tries (most of which either missed or simply bounced off the ballistics gel) before they finally got one to hit tip first, and even then it penetrated only an inch or two, meaning that it's unlikely to be quite as effective as seen in the movie. Busted.

As seen in James Bond Skyfall, can a chandelier be repurposed into detonating shrapnel bombs made out of smashed lightbulbs with the intact filament inside a shotgun shell and surrounded by bags full of nuts and bolts?
They tested every stage of the process in sequence. First, they were able to break lightbulbs without damaging the filament, then they proved that the exposed filament could ignite gunpowder, and then they succeeded in igniting the power inside a shotgun shell. However, when it came to the final test, the shotgun shells did not ignite with enough force to send out any shrapnel, with much of it just falling to the floor once the plastic bags melted. To get the results of the movie, they had to do something so dangerous that they were simply not allowed to explain it to us. Busted.

As seen also in James Bond Skyfall, if some shotgun shells, primer up, were placed under a lose floorboard and a bad guy steps on it, would his legs get blown off?
By simply placing the shotgun shells under the floorboard, it required a stomping force to set them off, rather than the slow and light footsteps in the movie. However, flipping the shells over and placing some kind of metal punching handtool underneath was able to set off the primers with light footsteps. After building a rig for the final test (complete with a meat leg), the board did nothing and the shotgun shells simply blew apart. It was only by literally firing those shells from a gun that the destructive result was finally achieved. Busted.

[The Chronicler]

Well, looks like I've now officially lost the ability to watch new episodes live, hence why I'm so late with my review of this week's episode. Thankfully, I've just figured out how to watch new episodes in the days after it aired, so at least I'll still have a way to watch them. (At least watching a video instead of on TV comes with the advantage of being able to pause it if I have to.) Anyway, onto this week's new episode.

As seen in numerous action movies, can you pick up and carry around a dead body and use it as a shield in a gunfight.
They first tested if it was possible to hold up and carry around a body, using the syndaver seen back in the first episode. While it certainly took more effort than what you've probably seen in the movies, it is possible. They next tested different types of bullets fired from a simple handgun, and only one of the three was stopped short enough that they could use it in the final test. They built a rig that could roll smoothly back and forth along a track and put on it a plywood figure with the syndaver placed in front of it, and even added a randomly firing paintball gun. Finally, after firing a real gun at the moving target, several shots ended up going all the way through, meaning that a dead body is not as bulletproof as seen in the movies. Busted.

Is a non-Newtonian fluid (such as oobleck) bombproof?
The substance in question is a mixture of corn starch and water, which typically behaves like a liquid, but also behaves like a solid when a sudden force is applied to it. For the small scale test, they built a rig with a bag between a cherry bomb and five panes of glass. The bag filled with air had all five panes break, the bag filled with water had three panes break, and the bag filled with oobleck had only two panes break. For the full scale test, they built a narrow glass box between the high explosive and a wall of water balloons with some pressure sensors on the ground nearby. When the box was filled with air, the shockwave was lethal and almost completely destroyed the rig. When the box was filled with water, the shockwave was reduced, but still lethal. Finally, when the box was filled with oobleck, it had less damage like the water test, but got a greater shockwave than even the air test, so all that energy is not being absorbed but rather transferred through the substance, so despite earlier results, it's not bombproof. Busted.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the annual MythBusters holiday mega-marathon just started today, where every single episode from the Pilot to the most recent will be shown for well over a week. Because of this, the next new episode will be two weeks away. (Too bad I won't be able to watch any of it, now that I no longer get the Science Channel at my place.)

[The Chronicler]

It's good that I'm now able to watch these new episodes online, and since I can set aside more time on Thursdays than on Wednesdays, I'm completely fine with waiting until the day after the premier to watch these new episodes. Anyway, onto this week's episode (which also marked the end of this year's MythBusters holiday mega-marathon).

If a flaming arrow is shot into a car's gas tank, will the car instantly burst into flames?
First, they built a small clear tank to see if a gas tank could even explode when ignited. A full tank did nothing (due to not enough oxygen), but a quarter full tank with a hole in it got ignition, but the flame went out quickly, so they figured that the gas leaking out of the hole would provide the best chance of ignition. Next, they tested to see if a crossbow arrow would even penetrate a car's gas tank, and despite the small ideal target area, it definitely made it through. However, to ensure they could get gas to leak out, they tested different types of arrowheads, and the only one that gave them the desired result was the broadtip. Next, they tried to see what type of fuel to put on the arrow to deliver the flame to the car, but nearly all of them went out due to how fast the arrow was shot, with the only one that worked was the cannon fuse. Finally, on the full-scale test, despite shooting a lot of flaming arrows, they just couldn't get every part of the myth to occur, so they simply shot an arrow to puncture the tank, then remotely ignited the leaking gas. Although they finally got ignition, it was not an explosion, and it took half an hour for the car to become completely ablaze. Busted.

Based on an old South American tribe's initiation that involved shooting an arrow straight up and staying perfectly still until it falls back down, would a falling arrow be lethal?
First, they had to measure how fast an arrow falls, so they went out into the desert, fired arrows straight up (and immediately retreat to the safety of a mobile bunker), then waited for the arrows to fall. The arrows landed across a wide area, so to ensure the falling arrow would fall within view of the high-speed camera, they decide to simply drop the arrow from a drone from the highest point an arrow fell from (which they determined by attaching some tiny device to an arrow before shooting it straight up). Once they finally got the measured speed, they made a simulated human head, tested how far to pull the bowstring to get the arrow to fly at the desired speed, and then placed the head in front of the target and fired an arrow at it. The arrow managed to penetrate the skull, so even though it's very unlikely the arrow will fall straight down onto the shooter, if it does hit it will definitely be lethal. Confirmed.

[The Chronicler]

Well, once again, just when I thought I finally found a way to keep watching new episodes, I lose it entirely. It turns out the Science Channel website will only allow me to watch two episodes for free, and the rest I'll need sign in with my TV provider to see them (which isn't an option for me for the same reason why I couldn't keep watching the live stream on that site). I got lucky today and managed to find the most recent episode available on YouTube, but that's obviously not something I can really rely on. It's gotten to the point where I feel it's a little absurd how much effort I have to go through just to watch one show on one channel, not knowing if these new episodes will ever be available somewhere else at some time later on. Well, anyway, onto the summary of the latest episode.

In an action movie stunt, can someone on the rooftop of a tall building and secured by a rope be able to jump off, shoot a gun to shatter a window, and then swing over to land safely on the lower floor within the opened window?
They started by tying a rope of certain lengths to Buster and tossing him off a tower to see if a person could withstand the forces of suddenly stopping once the rope is pulled taut: six stories was lethal, four stories was enough for a concussion, and two stories was completely survivable, so they decided to proceed with a height of two stories. Next, they fired a gun at a pane of glass as they swung Buster towards it, and they discovered that just a single shot would be enough to completely shatter the glass and permit a safe entry, while not shooting at all and just crashing through the glass would certainly hurt. However, since they weren't allowed to use an actual gun for the final test, they instead modified a gun handle so that it would remotely shatter the glass by a rig mounted to it right at the moment a shot would be fired. Finally, after a lot of practice with a professional stunt coordinator, one of them was able to jump off the roof, swing around, shoot at the window, and fall through to land safely inside. (I don't yet know if this one was called either Plausible or Confirmed, since the video I was able to see was missing the final half-minute that would've showed that, but at least I'm very sure it's not Busted. I'll edit this note out once I eventually find out for sure.)

What is the best method to prevent yourself from crying while chopping onions?
After explaining the science behind why chopping onions makes you cry, they started by building a "reverse gas mask" and testing on themselves which type of onion had the most effect, which turned out to be the red onion. Next, after building two sealed boxes connected to each other (one for chopping the onions and the other for the test subject to place their head for the test), they brought in some volunteers. After the control test, they then tested three methods: chewing gum, freezing the onions, and covering the onions in lemon juice. The gum had barely any improvement, freezing did only marginally better, but the lemon juice by far did the best to prevent any tears or eye irritation (although they do point out that mixing lemon juice with onions isn't exactly a pleasant thing to taste). Plausible.

[The Chronicler]

I'm not even going to bother explaining anymore how I'm able to watch new episodes, because knowing my luck so far, there might be a chance where my current method once again fails and I may have to resort to even more desperate measures. All I can say for sure is that I'll be posting my reviews no more than a day after I finally get a chance to watch them.

Two wild west myths for the latest episode.

In a gunfight, are you more likely to take out your opponents if you take your time to aim rather than just firing a bunch of shots as rapidly as possible?
After receiving some training from a professional on both methods of shooting with both a revolver pistol and a lever-action rifle, they then set up a course that involved trying to shoot a target that moves into view for only a few seconds while also avoiding shooting any bystander targets. During the aim-and-shoot test for both the pistol and the rifle, they both got one or two hits per target. But for the rapid-fire test, while the pistol got no hits (as well as hitting a few bystanders), the rifle got many more shots on the targets with none on the bystanders. This resulting difference is most likely due to the different ways these two guns were held for this method, with the pistol down near the hip and the rifle up on the shoulder where it would typically be held for aiming anyway. Confirmed for handguns, Busted for rifles.

As seen in a movie (I forget what it's called), can you build a crossbow that can light and shoot sticks of dynamite multiple times and not harm the shooter?
They started by modifying a small crossbow to shoot projectiles of the same size and weight of dynamite sticks and proved that such projectiles could be launched at the distances seen in the movie. However, because the final design had to include a magazine for rapid reload, they had to custom build the crossbow that would be used for the final test. In addition, adding something that would successfully light the fuses for the dynamite turned out to be quite challenging, and they ultimately went by simply attaching a blowtorch. And for obvious safety reasons, they then mounted the crossbow onto a remote controlled stand that would allow them to aim and fire it without being too close to the area once they brought in the real dynamite. Later, once they got everything set up for the full scale test, they started with the analogue projectiles from the first test and everything worked just as planned, hitting three targets at varying distances. Finally, once they loaded real dynamite, the first shot went great, but as they prepared for the second shot, the fuse that got lit was not the one that was loaded but rather the one that was still inside the magazine, and with no way to stop it, it blew up and completely destroyed the crossbow. I think it's safe to say that this was one of those cases where, "on Mythbusters, failure is always an option". Because part of the myth stated that the dynamite crossbow is supposed to be reliable and leave the shooter completely unharmed, the catastrophic failure of their test served as a definitive result. Busted. (At least, that's what I assume the official verdict was, though I couldn't see for sure since the video I was able to watch had its final minute cut off. I'll edit this note out once I know for sure.)