Slashdot Mirror

You mean the show that confirmed it as possible.

Variations on the original: * Electrified Third Rail: tested with an electric fence instead and found that an electric fence can shock you if you pee on it. confirmed

Didn't Mythbusters cover this?

Yes.

Jumping out of a plane with a raft has been tested, as a matter of fact:
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/08/episode_37_escape_slide_parach.html

Using a life raft to survive a fall from an airplane: mythbusted

FWIW, Mythbusters tested it.
Episode 33: Killer Brace Position and Cellphones vs Drunk Driving

The brace position on airlines increases chance of death: mythbusted

Talking on a cellphone while driving is as dangerous as drunk driving: confirmed

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/06/mythbusters_killer_brace_posit.html

As I said in an earlier post, Aloha Airlines had 20 feet of walls and ceiling suddenly tear off the fuselage. The only death was a flight attendant who was in the aisle at the time, I'm sure the 700 mile an hour wind and immediate turbulence is what made her fall out, not some sudden pressure change of only 8.5psi. Mythbusters tested it, even detonating explosives on the window in the pressurized plane didn't knock Buster out of his seat.

Hollywood put this idea in everyone's minds that everyone gets sucked out into space, like Goldfinger, if you shoot out a window on a plane. Just doesn't happen that way.

people being launched using this.. Just wait.

MythBusters already covered that.

As I remember, nothing had any effect, except for an attempted cell phone call on a specific frequency that significantly deflected either the VOR or ILS (don't remember which now).

Not really

A 800Mhz signal, however, showed major needle deflection, as did 850Mhz and 900Mhz signal. This showed that it was possible in theory to interfere with the navigational equipment, but their wiring wasn't shielded in the same manner that an airplane would have been.

They used unshielded wiring and also were using the power equivalent of having an entire cell tower inches away from the receiver.

They repeated the test in an actual plane (on the ground):
Grant started off with the 800Mhz signal that caused problems in the Faraday cage test. There was no interference with the 800Mhz signal or any other signal they tested.

...and that was with the over-the-top power output.

So, unless you're in a plane unshielded electronics, and everyone on the plane receives a call at the same time, and all their phones use the same frequency, and the magnetic compass is somehow nonoperational, and the GPS is somehow nonoperational, and the radio is nonoperational.....

Futher reading

Basically, we'll know for sure it's safe when they use pico-cells on planes so they can charge huge rates... oh wait...

The only reasons to ban cells on planes are social ones. PLEASE stop trying to use boggieman technical issues to try and solve a social dilemma.

Apparently the Mythbusters also figured that out.

First word of advice they got was to buy some regular, non-steel toed boots. No point in losing the whole toe when you could just have a few broken toes.

Except that "steel toe amputation" is a myth. Except in some very odd-ball circumstances, you are safer to wear steel-toed boots.

We even had someone run over a steel toed boot with hot dogs in it once, sliced them pretty clean, considering the tool.

And what happened to the hot dogs when you put them in an ordinary boot and ran over them? Complete crush is more than "a few broken toes".

Or run it through a Brita filter first, to remove the aftertaste. http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_50_bullets_fired_up_vo.html

Due to the physics of fluid dynamics, a urine stream would largely break apart before it would hit the fence its self and thus a current would have a fairly difficult time traveling up the urine stream to you. More so considering that urine isn't a very good conductor unless it has fairly substantial amounts of various salts in it. I wouldn't do it but it isn't *quite* as deadly as it sounds. See mythbusters' take on the matter.

Rather than strip-search everyone, rifle thru their bags, steal their travel-sized hygiene products and lighters, why don't we just pull a full-stop on all this "Security Theater" B.S. and do a total 180; Imagine walking into an airport, grabbing your ticket, and being issued a Glock with low-grain, soft-head rounds (I'm thinking about something that can't pass thru a hull). Heck, it's already been shown that a bullet-sized hole at 30,000 feet doesn't cause explosive decompression. Let's just throw in a few hollow-points. I guarantee the next guy that stands up and screams "Dirka, dirka! Muhammad Jihad!" would have a *very* interesting story to tell his lil harem in the after life.

[citation needed]

MythBusters' Episode 22: Boom Lift Catapult, A/C vs. Open Windows

Well, look at their experimental design:

Chicken gun: this was the main focus of the episode, if only because they still had trouble busting this one. It was also the only busting with interesting results. Instead of doing what I thought would be the obvious redo, which would be to get bird-impact-rated windshields for airplanes to test (the major mistake from the first test), they built large blocks of foam to launch the chickens into. This was a mistake as they couldn't get any reliable results out of the blocks. On their next attempt, they used twelve sheets of glass stacked on top of each other. The thawed chicken shattered about 2-3 panes on impact. The frozen chicken broke straight through all twelve, leaving a nice circular hole.
Annotated Mythbusters

They called this one wrong. They only found a difference between the frozen and thawed chicken once the chicken had been slowed down by a couple panes of glass. When flying fast enough, there's no difference between a thawed and frozen chicken, the same way there's no difference between landing on concrete and water when you fall from high enough.

Latin American culture has shown itself to be incredibly ingenious with minimal resources. This fence is a boondoggle. I spoke with someone who ran the border several times. One technique is to soak their clothes in a bucket of ice water to get past infrared sensors. The Mythbusters did a great sensor test, where a simple pane of glass was enough to walk in front of infrared sensors, and a bedsheet over the head hosed ultrasonic sensors at close range. Walking very slowly worked too.

This was "busted" by MythBusters: http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_69_22000_foot_fall_lig.html And another article from Lawrence Berkeley: http://enduse.lbl.gov/info/LBNL-45862.pdf (scroll down to myth #3).

something to be said for keeping guns off planes in general; a belligerent idiot with a gun in an enclosed space like a plane is pretty bad even if they're not a terrorist.

checkout http://www.thegunzone.com/fam-lawman/fam-qual.html So 1) a single gunshot wouldn't cause much harm even if it did penetrate the hull http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2004/01/mythbusters_explosive_decompre.html 2) the bullets used by marshals can't penetrate the hull 3) required training ensures marshals won't miss. 4) why bother with a gun on a plane, when guns have the advantage in larger areas, a knife would be way more affective if victim count is the goal (noiseless, less traces, easier to hide, etc) and when you can get closer to your target (Marshals don't have the element of surprise to get close to the targets, so they may need the reach of a gun)
Guns are good when you have specific targets, but for mass killing and terrorism they can be used, but with a little imagination many other options are more efficient, cheaper, easier to hide, etc. So I disagree a guy trained with a knife would be much more devastating than a small gun in a plane, I agree neither could take control anymore. (although a lunatic is more likely to get lucky, once, with a gun)

"Chicken Gun

Update: This myth was revisited and it turns out that frozen chickens are more damaging (REVISIT)

Cool Myth #1: NASA builds a chicken gun to fire chicken carcasses at their windshields. A European company hears about this and uses a chicken gun to test their railroad cars. When they fire, the chicken flies through the windshield and embeds itself in a seat way back in the car. They write NASA about this, to which NASA replies, "thaw your chickens."

So, in essence, they were testing whether a frozen chicken does more damage than a thawed chicken. But I just think they wanted to build a chicken gun. And a chicken gun they did build.

Jamie ended up using a 250 psi tank with a butterfly valve on the cannon and a big fat lever to pull down in order to launch the chicken. This thing annihilated the chickens, turning them into puree. They also loaded in a pumpkin for good measure and managed to puncture the fuselage of the plane they were using for target practice. Result of myth: when a chicken is flying that fast, it don't matter what temperature it is."

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2004/02/mythbusters_chicken_gun.html

If you are going to quote me, quote what I wrote rather than what the grandparent poster wrote.

But, I simply reported what I've observed. I'm not sure why, although I think the grandparent might be on the right track: if my car is geared to run most efficiently at 70 mpg, running at a lower speed might yield a lower mpg.

It would be interesting to put it on a dynamometer and install an accurate flowmeter to plot instant mph under controlled conditions. I have an instantaneous mpg display in the car, but the resolution isn't that accurate and it would be difficult to set up exactly the same conditions.

And if you run really fast in the rain, you won't get as wet, right?

If you believe the Mythbusters, no. But, if you believe meteorologists at the National Climatic Center and a Canadian physicist, yes.

it wasn't even part of a myth, it was part of a contest between two outside groups trying to start things on fire with mirrors. when they discovered that all teams were technically not fully within the rules they had to revise their mirrors, the one time tried to use plaster in a spinning platform to form parabola but it didn't come out with the correct shape so they had to abandon it. no myth was busted from this.

it was this episode

Try running your crappy vodka through a Brita water filter a couple times. (although Mythbuster disagrees, I think it works.)

I guess its time to watch MythBusters about that anti-reflective spray...

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2007/03/episode_73_beating_the_speed_camera_exploding_patches.html

MythBusters did a thing on this and couldn't get any noticeable changes in any of the navigation equipment. Their conclusion was that most of the equipment was too well shielded. Maybe on a small private plane that might be different.

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_49_cellphones_on_plane.html

Looks like he succeeded where the MythBusters failed. The device looks pretty much identical to the one they built.

those don't work

I think Spielberg built a huge PR hill to climb for the litigious American market. Ever see Jaws? As Mythbusters showed, in the extremely unlikely event that an air tank ruptured, it would typically expirate rather explode. It would be difficult indeed to make the tank explode, but that's the image I have.

A twist on that by which the energy industry could rake in profit is by declaring it unsafe to use compressed air. Instead only compressed CO2 or Nitrogen should be used, to avoid fire hazard.

O'course, that kind of undermines efficiency for braking, which should best be done by compressing air. Maybe they could use two tanks and use the difference in potential (pressure) between the two in a closed system.

This myth was busted on Mythbusters. Please stop spreading it.

Out of respect for the investment in a show's production I think you should always link to the official site when using content. http://discovery.com/mythbusters/

Annotation excerpt from http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_69_22000_foot_fall_lig.html

Based on the amount of energy consumed turning on the bulb, they were able calculated how long the bulb would have to be turned off in order to make it worth the energy savings, i.e. "It's best to turn off the bulb if you are leaving the room for":

• Incandescent: 0.36 seconds
• CFL: 0.015 seconds
• Halogen: .51 seconds
• LED: 1.28 seconds
• Fluorescent: 23.3 seconds

In other words, its almost always best to turn the bulb off. Even the 23 seconds for the fluorescent lights isn't very long, and the rest of the times are pretty much blinks of an eye.

when her .44 blew a hole through the perp and into the fuselage, causing a violent decompression

It was 5F this morning and the lights in my garage sure came on quickly and brightly enough. Hint: don't buy the cheapest bulbs you can find and put them outside.

Breakeven for a fluorescent lamp is about 23 seconds. After that, it's all profit.

Turns out old dogs can learn new tricks

It's also reassuring to know the stuff growing out of my ears these days are just axons growing toward the light and not ear hair.

I thought it was established that the intial crash kills few people, but tends to fracture alot of legs, then everyone dies in the resulting fire because they can't get out. So maybe a better article would be "How to get out of a burning plane when you have two broken legs." Of course I get all my science from MythBusters:http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/06/myt hbusters_killer_brace_posit.html

CF bulbs are not designed for short on cycles. They're a poor choice for a hallway where the light is only turned on for a minute or two, or in a laundry room.

I think you're mistaken. I know, because I watch TV! Mythbusters looked at lightbulb myths recently. Actually, I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say CFs are not "designed" for short cycles. If you mean that they will burn out faster, that's certainly possible, but I doubt it. If you're referring to power-up energy costs, CFLs' energy-savings start at 15 milliseconds, so it's generally OK to turn off the bulb.

Not that this has anything to do with Mercury...

Back in season 3:

"It was found that cell phone signals, specifically those in the 800-900 MHz range, did interfere with unshielded cockpit instrumentation. Because older aircraft with unshielded wiring can be affected, and because of the possible problems that may arise by having many airborne cell phones "seeing" multiple cell phone towers, the FCC (via enforcement through the FAA) still deems it best to stay on the safe side and prohibit the use of cell phones while airborne." -Wikipedia

You can read more about it here: http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_49_cell phones_on_plane.html

No, its pretty unlikely that using your cell phone will cause any problems.. Banning cell phone use is mostly a safety precaution "just in case" the spectrum your phone is using interferes with the planes avionics. Mythbusters did a test where they jacked up the power of a cell phone over 1000 times and it had no effect on the cockpit instruments. Check out http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_49_cell phones_on_plane.html

Now they may ban you from using your phone since they want you to pay for THEIR service, but that's a different story altogether.

Poor example of the effects of a collision.

"They next tested shooting a full tank through the bottom. The tank flew around the tank like a rocket, reminiscent of CO2 cartridge cars."

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/07/special_jaws_sp ecial_1.html

This was however only after a bullet shot from a 30-06 riffle. This does not demonstrate what would happen to a tank if it was ruptured in a collision of significant force, where the breach was not as "controlled" as the nice round hole caused by a bullet. Say something like this...

http://www.mshp.dps.mo.gov/MSHPWeb/PatrolDivisions /TFD/Images/DSC00542.JPG

Besides, a large enough tank to hold the necessary pressure flying "around like a rocket", would probably be more unsafe, and less localized to the accident scene that a mere explosion.

Why is this rated "funny"? Mythbusters did this:

"Although there's no word on damage to the engine from using used cooking oil, a diesel-fueled car did run on it. However, the MythBusters speculate that once this alternative fuel achieves a significant interest level among the public, used cooking oil will be hoarded as a saleable commodity. The used cooking oil also did not quite fit the requirement of improved fuel efficiency, as it yielded approximately 10% less distance for an equivalent amount of diesel."

See here and here (scroll down)

Wrong - The payback time for traditional fluorescents is 23 seconds and much less than 1 second for CFL. There are probably better links to prove this but http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_69_2200 0_foot_fall_lig.html was the quickest I could find.

As usual, the Mythbusters experiment is inadequate and does not actually represent science. They tested no devices over 10W. The page does not say if they were using electronic ballasts or not. In fact the lowest-power CFL I own is ~20W. The dual-ring flourescents mounted in every room of the home we are renting (which was fairly intelligently designed and equipped) are, IIRC, 23 and ~40W, with one ring cool white, and the other warm white. In the kitchen we have four 40W tubes.

This doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means that I'd prefer a useful citation.

I also have to wonder about the penalty for frequent restarts on lamp life as opposed to incandescents. Is it better, or worse?

Regardless of these issues, we would have to determine the overall cost of such a change to determine if it would be worth it. Besides energy consumption, we have to consider the cost of manufacturing these lamps, both in money and energy; both will necessarily be many times that of making an incandescent, which is far simpler. Then we have to consider both the cost of recycling those which are recycled (since they have Mercury in them it is vitally important to recycle them) and the energy cost of environmental cleanup to deal with all the lamps which are not recycled - and I suspect they will far outnumber those which are.

All in all this is a pretty pathetic alternative to just building a couple nuclear plants in California, and letting technology solve the lamp power consumption problem.

That raises a great point. Traditional flourescents use more power during warmup than they do in like two or three hours of use, maybe more. Does this apply to CFLs as well? Any light frequently cycled would then be an unsuitable application for flourescents.

Wrong - The payback time for traditional fluorescents is 23 seconds and much less than 1 second for CFL. There are probably better links to prove this but http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_69_2200 0_foot_fall_lig.html was the quickest I could find.

The TV show mythbusters tested the power consumption of a variety of bulbs in a practical test. The results:

* Incandescent 90 w/hour
* Compact Fluorescent (CFL): 10 watts/hour
* Halogen: 70 w/h
* Metal halide 60 w/h
* LED: 1 w/h
* Fluorescent: 10 w/h

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_69_2200 0_foot_fall_lig.html

I've already replaced most of the bulbs in my home. The government should find a way to reduce the cost of the good fluorescent bulbs. Subsidize the cost maybe. A ban of incandescent bulbs is going too far though.

Yeah, this promise has been made before. I heard back in Egypt they sold Pharaohs on the idea of recording sound in pottery. Not even the mythbusters could replay the sound....

If that many people on the airplane have guns, chances are that airplane is going down when the shooting starts. Guns and planes don't mix.

Are you sure about that?

I think that's rubbish, there's no way a kid under the age of 15 would spot the danger of talking on a cellphone while driving unless it was explained to him/her by their parents althought I don't see a good reason to at that age.

Overall

The cellphone tests were failed by a much bigger margin, though Adam's observation was that you can put down a cellphone -- you can't get instantly undrunk. Also, they tested the drunk driving below the California legal limit -- Adam, at least, has gotten much drunker for MythBuster tests than that.

Confirmed

Funny you should mention a slingshot ... this episode of MythBusters was on the Discovery channel last night, at least in my area. They also did the "strap rockets to yourself" myth -- or more precisely strap rockets to a chair.

Funny you should mention a slingshot ... this episode of MythBusters was on the Discovery channel last night, at least in my area. They also did the "strap rockets to yourself" myth -- or more precisely strap rockets to a chair.

http://kwc.org/blog/archives/2004/2004-02-27.mythb usters_sinking_ships_goldfish_1812_overture_trombo ne.html

Wrong. I've seen the episode about five times; I recommend that you re-watch it. Or check the web:

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/02/mythbusters_sal sa_escape_dynam.html
http://www.cxliv.org/television/mythbusters/index. php/2
http://www.tv.com/the-unit/show/33480/official-dis cussion-thread-episode-1-8-sere-april-25th/topic/1 4917-241386/msgs.html
(etc)

AC is no good for electrolysis, which is what was really going on. You need the electrons to flow in one direction.

Wasn't it Mythbusters who showed that driving while talking on a cell phone was as bad as driving drunk? It's not so much the fact our eyes are averted when we fiddle with things, it's the fact that our attention is still diverted while we try to listen to the iPod chattering on about what menu we've selected.

I think we should just take all those who talk on the cell phone & drive and put them on a mythbuster porta potty