Ask The Mythbusters

Who are the Mythbusters? Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman are the hosts of a unique and popular television show on the Discovery cable channel. Working from a background in the special effects industry and shooting on location at effects warehouse M5 Industries, Jamie and Adam attempt to shed light on hearsay, rumour, and myth. Along the way they usually run across a little bit of science, too. Today, you have a chance to put questions to them. We'll take the 15 best questions and pass them on to the gentlemen to be answered sometime soon after the Thanksgiving holiday. One question per comment, please, and keep things topical. We'll post their responses as soon as we get them back, so ask away.

Comments

Favorites

[MikesOnFire]

Lets start simple -
What is your favorite Busted Myth and your favorite Confirmed one?

Re:Favorites

[stevey]

I've only seen a few shows, but I like the way they look like they're always having fun and getting paid to goof off.

By far the best episode I ever saw was the one where they showed a wine glass being shattered by the sound of somebodies voice; allegedly this was the first confirmed case of this being captured on camera, rather than being repeated as hearsay.

(From memory they had to use an amplifier)

Re:Favorites

[Such007]

Have you ever done any experiments on tapeworms? Can they live outside the body, say for example in a tap line at a bar?

Re:Favorites

[kpwoodr]

The title of your show is "Myth Busters". That said it would seem to your benefit to have more bustable myths than not. Your reputation seems to be at stake with the need to stay above .500. Otherwise you might have to change the name of your show to something like "Myth Guys" or "Guys who sometimes bust myths, but only easy ones".

Are there any myths that the network won't let you have a crack at?

Re:Favorites

[llevity]

In all fairness, this is two guys vs. MIT. Cut them some slack, eh?

Re:Favorites

[Dasch]

Actually, when the Mythbursters invited the MIT guys to San Francisco, MIT's death ray apparatus didn't successfully set a ship on fire.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-10-22-de athray_x.htm

Re:Favorites

[saetaes]

Um, actually, the MIT team went out to San Francisco on the Discovery Channel's dime, and failed to recreate their own results. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2 005/10/22/state/n121443D54.DTL You might want to reconsider the MythBuster's credibility...

Re:Favorites

[Manitcor]

What your forgetting is the format of the show. First they take a myth and test it as closely as possible to the excat theme of the myth.

In this case the myth was that Arcamedies had an army of soliders with highly polished shields. On command the soliders directed the sunlight at the advancing ships. And burned to dust an entire fleet. No not one boat, but an entire advancing fleet.

This myth was quickly busted from the inital tests showing the diffcutly of having multiple people align thier mirrors in one spot.

Next they tested the 2nd myth which was similar claiming that arcamedies had a device with mirrors mounted to it which he used to direct the sunlight. As both mythbusters and MIT discovered, while possible to ignite or create smoke on an ship you have serious issues with mirror alignment and the movement of the sun. While it may be probale that a device like this was in fact constructed and even probable that it was used and may have even torched or at least set to flame one ship (ignoring factors like wet hulls, and having ideal conditions). The chances of someone even today taking out an entire fleet of advancing ships which would likely be spread across miles of shore line is so unlikely that it borders on completly impossible if not impossible.

Thus the myth was busted.

Often times people tend to forget what the myth actually was by the time they are at the end of the show. This was a problem with the eariler shows and if you notice in later shows the format is changed up a bit where they re-hash and re-explain the myth as well as why it was busted. To prevent this very problem.

Re:Favorites

[carlos_benj]

The only problem with it is that you're left with a salty residue on your beer can/bottle. The first few sips are salty unless you wipe it off.

That is a problem. I'd suggest wiping it off then.......

With brilliant thinking like this, do you suppose I could have a spot on the show?

Re:Favorites

[IngramJames]

allegedly this was the first confirmed case of this being captured on camera, rather than being repeated as hearsay

I remember watching that being done on UK TV as a kid in the 70s. I wasn't that impressed, because the glass didn't shatter violently and spectactularly, like it would have done if Murdoch off the A Team had shot it with an AK-47 in a bar raid on local moonshine suppliers.

I don't know what that says about me, and I don't much care to ask.

Re:Favorites

[carlos_benj]

A common 'myth'conception, my friend.....

A myth is a story that may or may not have some basis in truth. So, the ratio of busted to confirmed myths isn't necessary to the accuracy of the title as it could accurately convey their intent (and it sounds cooler than "Myth Investigators"). They may be setting out to bust as many as they can, but in the process they end up confirming some.

Re:Favorites

[Glsai]

It's quite a bit more expensive than salt, but this has to be a much geekier way to do it: http://www.coopercooler.com/index_1.html

Re:Favorites

[netsrek]

they did investigate the myth that a human could give birth to (iirc) an octopus. it turned out that the human stomach is too harsh of an environment for nearly all animals

Babies live in the stomach!?!?!?!

Re:Favorites

[ArsonSmith]

Simpler still, Are you hiring?

Ohh, my dream job. Build stuff then blow it up.

Re:Favorites

[DesireCampbell]

Exactly, one of my favourite upisodes was the myth about diving underwater to escape gun fire. The shot bullets into the water to see how far it took to slow the bullets down enought to make them non-lethal. The 9mm hadgun took about a dozen feet (as I recall) and the shotgun took about the same. When they moved up to supersonic weapons, the water proved an insurmountable force - stopping the bullets almost instantly, and more, the bullets SHATTERED into hundreds of peices withing the first foot of water. They even tested anti-TANK rifles - huge explosion of water, little fragments of bullet. Proving you could be completly safe from firearms if you slim a couple of feet underwater. Just one of the myths that they proved true.

Re:Favorites

[bataras]

It is impossible to prove a negative. When you do something like failing to flip a taxi with a jet engine and claim that busts the myth that a taxi can be flipped with a jet engine, do you feel you're misleading the public as to how science and logic work?

Re:Favorites

[Jboy_24]

Its said to be impossible to prove a negative. I think they did do a great job in proving that it was impossible enough.

1) They tested with pitch and tar on wood

2-3) I read that invading ships would cover the sea for as far as the eye could see. Do you really think 300-500 soldiers could invade a city with perhaps 100,000+ people? I think you're off by 100x

Finally, MIT was only able to catch a ship on fire when it was 75 feet away using modern mirrors. Look at something 75 feet away. You honestly think Archimedies had 1000s of soldiers standing at the shore, aiming mirrors at ships 75 ft (22m) away (bobbing in the ocean) trying to start them on fire, while the people on the ship were firing arrows back at them?

Re:Favorites

[Shakrai]

The only problem with it is that you're left with a salty residue on your beer can/bottle. The first few sips are salty unless you wipe it off.

Can? I wasn't aware that real beer came in cans ;)

Re:Favorites

[mugs_oh]

They do lose credibility on this when they show the video of a taxi being flipped by a jet engine in Brazil. Their mistake is that they never stay true to the conditions of the myth. They often interjct their own thoughts as to what is should be instead of what it was. In this case they used a heavy American taxi instead of the lightweight little cares used as taxis in Brazil. They were too short-sighted and didn't research their experiment. I used to like this show, but became too frustrated watching it and seeing glaring porblems with their recreations. Another example is the "Magic Bullet" experiment from the Kennedy assasination. They assumed the "Magic Bullet" was made out of ice. But, in the lore of the assisination the "Magic Bullet" is used to refer to a bullet that entered and exited Kennedy twice and ended up in Conolly's leg. Again, they got it wrong. There are some theories that an ice bullet was used, but it is not the Magic Bullet so often referred to.

Re:Favorites

[Manitcor]

First I think you are underestiamting the size of such a fleet. The roman navy at one time was the largest Navy in the world. In 36BC after Sextus was defeated by Octavian, a war where it was said there were thousands of ships engauged, the roman navy still touted over 700 warships.

Invading armies conquered by the 1000s. Assuming even a small fleet of 50 or so ships it would still be quite diffcult to catch anything on fire.

Throwing out the device as aming and pointing with the movment of the sun would clearly be too diffcult to take out such a large numeber of ships takes us back to the infantry with polished shields theroy.

A roman bow (depending on if it was infantry or calvery) range is between 130 and 300 meters. MITs best efforts with perfectly placed mirrors was 75feet.

If you could get an army of 10,000 men to move thier shields to the right place at the right time and be able to ignite a hull from at least more than 130 (416 feet) to possibly more than 300 (984 feet) meters away at minimum. Considering the loss in heat and intensienty over distance Im sure you begin to see the inherint problems with this. Further the range assumes you can get that many infantry men to stand in a close enoungh configuration so that the overall distance between the edges of the array isint so far apart that those on the edges of the array are generally useless.

Having the men in rows back to back would only work so far. Not to mention moving up and down poetentally miles of shoreline to cover the entire fleet.

I dont doubt that arcemedies was a genuis and in every tale (be it truth, lie or myth) there is always a bit of truth. It would not surprise me at all to know that Acramedies did build a device like this, and that it may have even been succfuly used on one ship at the right range under the right conditions. If that was the myth then it would have been proven or at least listed as plausible. But the myth states this device destroying an entire roman fleet. Its the scale of the myth that makes it busted.

Re:Favorites

[blair1q]

> Its said to be impossible to prove a negative

It's not true.

Re:Favorites

[blair1q]

Don't aim at the hull.

Aim at the sail.

There's nothing more flammable than an untreated sail.

Unless it's a sail treated by oiling it.

The inability to tile the plane is one of MythBusters' greatest faults. They consistently miss things that any cagy science student would see immediately. You'd think they'd keep at least one truly anal technical advisor on staff. Or maybe they're just doing so much they can't get enough runway to reach analytical flight.

Re:Favorites

[Zordak]

Prove it!

Re:Favorites

[kesuki]

my main gripe about the testing is they didn't test silver. Pure Silver Was what mirors were made of in ancient greece. Silver has a greater reflective index than any other Substance Period, inclulding modern aluminum backed mirrors.

silver is expensive, i know, even if the shields were merely plated in silver it would have been a king's ransom to build an array of them... but it would also explain why no evidence of such an array survived outside of myths and stories...

of course the conventional way to sink a fleet of ships would be to use greek fire tipped arrows, the fact that they left silver untested bothers me greatly... modern mirrors come close to what's possible with polished silver, but in terms of setting ships on fire 'close' isn't always 'close enough'

Re:Favorites

[Stele]

How about the "size doesn't matter" myth?

Your show is great fun to watch and all, but...

[bobertfishbone]

Have you ever been completely blown away by what you've found? Has there been an experiment where you two just sit back and say "Huh...who woulda thought?" Most of the myths are pretty easy to debunk, but I'm just curious as to whether or not there was actually one that you guys did that totally shocked you in being true.

Re:Your show is great fun to watch and all, but...

[kimvette]

Actually I figured that years ago - the reason is: would a corporation seeking to avoid CAFE levees design the aerodynamics of a truck to divert airflow in such a way that fuel economy will be fine when the tailgate is closed, or would they design the aerodynamics without taking the tailgate into account, causing customers to leave the tailgate open and let it bounce (and eventually come off on some bumpy road because the safety cables or levers are usually fairly flimsy)?

Of course they assume a closed tailgate (since they recommend never leaving it open) and want to do anything they can to avoid lowering their corporate average fuel economy rating (CAFE) when they design the vehicle, then they can avoid the $600-or-so per-vehicle fine because they've sought to keep their average fuel economy up.

Also: if they didn't take the tailgate into account when designing the truck, performance would absolutely suck on the highway. Hell, I've noticed the slight drag from the pop-up headlights on my ZR-1 (Corvette) at extreme speeds, and the drag from the aerodynamic popup headlights is minimal compared to the effects introduced by a large rectangular sail on a truck would be if the engineers didn't take it into account during the design and windtunnel testing process.

Re:Your show is great fun to watch and all, but...

[Moofie]

Maybe in California. In America, they're perfectly legal.

Re:Your show is great fun to watch and all, but...

[Fishstick]

Well, remember you're talking about California.

Among other things, they used a .50 cal, which I don't remember them specifically saying was illegal in California[1]. It was amazing how the bullet disintegrated in the water -- not what I expected

Another show they had to get a friend from the FBI to supply tracer rounds because they were 'illegal' in California.

[1]according to http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/vie wstate.php?st=ca


California - State law restricts the sale of all semiautomatic assault weapons that have specific military features such as pistol grips and folding stocks as well as a list of assault weapons and their copies such as the AK47 and Uzi. People who owned such assault weapons prior to the law are required to register the weapons and may not sell or give them to anyone else in the state. State law also restricts the sale of rapid-fire ammunition magazines in excess of 10 rounds.

California - State law restricts the sale of Saturday night specials or "junk" handguns. Handguns must meet two basic safety tests: a drop-safety test and a firing-performance test to prevent accidents. The drop-safety test ensures that handguns won't go off if dropped. The firing-performance test makes sure that handguns won't break apart with repeated use. But there is no restriction on the sale of small, snub-nosed handguns if they meet the two safety tests. In 2002, California strengthened the law to allow the state Department of Justice to "spot-check" handguns on sale in gun stores to make sure they met the standard and to increase DOJ oversight of the safety test procedures. Also see: Safety Standards.

Re:Your show is great fun to watch and all, but...

[surprise_audit]

Another show they had to get a friend from the FBI to supply tracer rounds because they were 'illegal' in California.

I was really surprised by the explanation given as to how the tracer rounds work. Phosphorus tips that ignite due to air friction?? Where did that come from?? When I was in school, the quartermaster in our Cadet Force took apart some tracer rounds to show us how they work. From the outside, they look like regular rounds, but once you pull the bullet from the casing you see that it's a bit longer than a normal bullet. The extra length is a hollow space that's filled with some kind of magnesium compound. When fired, the burning cordite sets fire to it.

The net effect is that the shooter sees the bright magnesium flare at the back of the bullet, rather than the target seeing a burning tip getting bigger. That's not to say that the target wouldn't see the flare anyway, but tracer is mostly used for the shooter's benefit, not to terrify the target...

Houston, we have a busted/confirmed myth

[richdun]

With an unlimited budget, what "myth" would you most like to test? How about using 1960s technology to try and land on the moon?

Re:Houston, we have a busted/confirmed myth

[Lord_Dweomer]

How about trying to find the WMDs in Iraq.

Re:Houston, we have a busted/confirmed myth

[nmb3000]

Good evidence that we truly never landed on the moon can be found here. Irrefutable if you ask me.

Myths that didn't make it.

[skywalker107]

What Myths have you tested that have never made it on the show? What about them made you and the producers decide they didn't qualify to go on the air?

Re:Myths that didn't make it.

[DMC_DMC_DMC]

See here for some myths that didnt make it. Mythbuster video galleries

Most Challenging Myth

[Winterblink]

What has been your most challenging myth to bust? And is there a particular myth you feel would be a challenging one to try taking on?

Injuries

[jacksonai]

What is the worst injury anyone sustained while trying to bust a myth?

Re:Injuries

[Ubergrendle]

On a related note...

Are there any myths that you would like to attempt to prove/disprove, but the risk involved is too great? Specifically, are there any scenarios that you can build sufficient saftey measures around that would allow you to test?

(Love your show, keep up the good work. One of the few things worth watching on Discovery anymore...)

Re:Injuries

['nother poster]

Been done. NASA did it with vacuum chambers in the 1950's. Well, actually, as I remember it they didn't use whole humans, just some appendages. Hands and arms I believe. There have been a few vacuum accidents while testing space suits and such. The victims claimed they felt their saliva boiling before they passed out.

Build Team

[I_Strahd]

Can you please get rid of the build team segments? These segments are annoying and I fast forward throught them anyway. I would really enjoy more actual show. Thanks!

busting myths mistakenly

[selil]

Have you all figured out yet that a Robin Hood (two arrows impacting the same spot) is actually possible? disgruntled archer.

Re:busting myths mistakenly

[SatanicPuppy]

I've broken the nock off more than a few arrows in my time, which, in this time of aluminum arrows, is about as close to "splitting" an arrow as you can get. If you're a good shot, and you're shooting at a small target it's not unlikely that you could hit an arrow that's already there. Basic probability distribution says that.

You'd have to be more uber than me to be able to do it repeatedly, or to hit the arrow on purpose, but I've known people who could hit their own arrow, given a few shots.

If I'd seen them prove that one "busted", I would have been peeved as well. In the era that they're referring to, in England, archery was the only allowed sport...I bet there were some damn ferocious archers, who could do things that modern sport hunters would not be capable of. They bow hunted for birds for christs sake.

Re:busting myths mistakenly

[dafz1]

In the test MythBusters did, they created a machine to fire the arrows following the human archer test, so that adjustments could be made to velocity, trajectory, etc. This was the device they used to put the tip of the broadhead against the nock of the arrow already in the target. As stated in my parent, all attempts at "splitting" arrow failed.

The one arrow they were able to somewhat damage, the problem was the arrow split following the wood grain of the shaft. Since all wood arrows have wood grain, they conclude that even if there was a direct tip to nock impact, there wouldn't be a "perfect" split.

Please watch Mythbusters Episode 36 "Killer Tissue Box", which will be re-broadcast Nov. 25, 2005 on the Discovery Channel @ 10am(EST). This is the episode that they "bust" this myth.

Re:busting myths mistakenly

[multriha]

The myth concerned arrows with wooden shafts. They covered the fact that hollow plastic and aluminum arrows were routinely split by hobbyists .

Re:busting myths mistakenly

[Divide By Zero]

The myth was that it was done with a wooden arrow so that's what they were trying to prove. They went to a local archery club and found archers who'd done this with carbon fiber arrows (and had the arrows to prove it), though not a perfect nock-to-tip split. Most were telescoped or had sheared off a part of the "target" arrow.

They tried what I assume was field point - a pencil-tip-like point, met with no success, and moved to broadhead. Still no success. A combination of the wobbly-arrow-in-flight phenomenon (which I'm sure has a name) and the inability to get perfectly straight wood grain on their "target" arrow was what busted it.

Re:busting myths mistakenly

[phoenix_rizzen]

The myth is not that you can hit another arrow (every archer's done that at one point or another), or the same spot twice. The myth is that Robin Hood split the arrow *from nock to tip*. In other words, the entire shaft of the arrow is split down the middle.

While there may be that 1 in a bazillion chance that it would work, all the tests they did showed that it is impossible. The blade of the arrow tip follows the grain in the wood, and unless you have a perfectly straight grain that never hits the edge of the shaft, the arrow will always pop out before it hits the target.

ultimate myth?

[Antonymous Flower]

What myth would the Mythbusters most like to investigate but lack the means to do so?

Cool

[JWW]

Mythbusters is a great show! Oh, yeah I should ask a question.

I understand completely why you guys warn us to "not try this at home". But who warns you guys?

Ok all joking aside. You guys do some really dangerous stuff on the show. What has been the scariest/ most hair raising moment on the show so far, a time when you might have thought "this is really going to hurt"?

Re:Cool

[AKAImBatman]

Whatever? Whatever?!? I don't think you realize the peril you place yourself in! Now the wrath of the First Church of Buster shall verily rain down upon you! Repent! Repent before you are smitten! ;-)

upside down car

[Marqis]

I heard that an F1 racing car has enough downdraft to drive upside down at speed. True or false?

Re:upside down car

[DigiShaman]

The answer is "true" according to the official F1 site.

http://www.formula1.com/insight/technicalinfo/11/4 68.html

Re:upside down car

[Guysmiley777]

True, sort of. You have to consider what the downforce is there for in the first place though.

The car produces more downforce than it weighs, that is true. It generates this force to exert more pressure on the tires, and thus more traction.

Ok, flip it upside down. Now instead of having downforce plus the weight of the car now you have only the downforce MINUS the car's weight acting on the tires. With that decrease in traction, the rear tires won't have enough grip to maintain speed. Less speed means less downforce, which means less traction which means even LESS speed which leads to not driving upside down anymore.

Re:upside down car

[TubeSteak]

Your argument makes sense, but the "less this, means less that, means less this" logically make any sense.

Downforce is downforce. The only situation where I'd question the ability of the car to hold traction would be during an extended driving session where the downforce is at a 90 degree angle to earth. Kindof like a plane flying on its side... it doesn't have any flight surfaces (other than the rudder, which cars don't have) providing lift in that direction.

Anyways, if you're going fast enough, that transition between right side up and upside down is irrelevant because gravity generated downforce.

Personally, I think you just don't like the idea of cars driving upside down.

Re:upside down car

[hackstraw]

I heard that an F1 racing car has enough downdraft to drive upside down at speed. True or false?

AFAIK, that is completely true. Or at least I saw it on some HD show and they said so. It seems completely possible. I just found here http://www.formula1.com/insight/technicalinfo/11/4 68.html:

A modern Formula One car is capable of developing 3.5 g lateral cornering force (three and a half times its own weight) thanks to aerodynamic downforce. That means that, theoretically, at high speeds they could drive upside down.

That is pretty intense, but I don't see how 3.5 g of lateral force translates necessarily to downward force. Lets click on the second google hit. http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s282081.h tm

A Formula 1 car uses aerodynamics to generate, at full speed, a downforce of 2-and-a-half times its own weight, so that it'll stick to the road really well. At 160 km per hour, they're generating their own weight in downforce - so they could theoretically drive upside down on the roof of a tunnel.

OK, 2.5 downward gs is enough.

I need a more fun job. By those specs, these things are basically a better handling fighter jet that can't go quite as fast, but pretty damn fast.

Re:upside down car

[HarvardAce]

At the speed where an F1 car is generating "2.5 times its weight in downforce", there is a LOT of drag, which means there is a LOT of power needed to maintain the speed.

I think you'll find if you do the math, you won't have a problem maintaining the speed. First, the article quoted said that an F1 car could generate 3.5g of lateral force. This means that the tires are gripping the ground at 3.5g, which is after the coefficient of friction between the tires/road has been factored in. If the car is turned upside down, that is now more than 1.5g of force the tires are able to apply (3.5g - (2 * (coeff. of friction * g)). Even if we assumed the tires can only produce 1 g of force, this would mean that the drag on the car at that speed would have to be equal to the force of gravity. This point is also called its terminal velocity. So you are basically arguing, at an absolute worst case, that the terminal velocity of an F1 car is about 200mph. Since a skydiver's terminal velocity is about 200mph with his arms tucked in, I'd venture to guess that an F1 car has a higher terminal velocity.

Remember, this is assuming that we can only generate 1g of lateral force. In reality, this number will be at least 1.5g and probably closer to 2g.

Fact vs Fun

[elrick_the_brave]

When I watch your show, it's obvious that there is a lot of fun going on. Who wouldn't like blowing up, breaking down, stinking up, falling down, and all-around destroying everything?

For those of us not of TV-land.. how long does it take for you guys to produce an average episode.. how much of it is fun vs time spent working on getting it right?

Would you consider a contest to have a guest helper? (Not that I am plugging this potential guest helper at all.. no!).

Own myths?

[DigiShaman]

Was there ever a myth you guys created be it intentional or by accident. As such, have others had to debunk this myth?

Is it true?

[robyannetta]

Similar to a stunt in a famous James Bond film, can a person really be shot out of a submarine torpedo tube?

Oh this is an easy one...

[tgd]

What is Kari's phone number, and whats her favorite restaurant?

Re:Oh this is an easy one...

[Heliologue]

I agree. Actually, I'm surprised this thread hasn't been overwhelmed with drooling over this very subject. In a related but more serious note: I've noticed that Kari seems to get more and more screen time; disproportionately so. Is there a concerted effort to boost her involvement (and no one is questioning her skill or usefulness) as a way to appeal to fans who, well, want to know her (in the Biblical sense)?

Re:Oh this is an easy one...

[tgd]

She's not on the show anymore.

She was on an episode of Monster Garage this season, though.

Re:Oh this is an easy one...

[CmdrPorno]

415-620-5412... Call her and ask her what her favorite restaurant is!

Re:Oh this is an easy one...

[Durandal64]

And in this thread, we're busting the myth that Kari might actually be interested in random people posting on Slashdot.

Re:Oh this is an easy one...

[poot_rootbeer]

I've noticed that in the intro for the past couple of episodes, the members formerly known as "the build team" (Tory, Kari, and Grant) have received full recognition as co-Mythbusters. How come they aren't involved in this Ask Slashdot opportunity?

Is it because Kari doesn't want to be bombarded with questions from creeps?

Idea behind MythBusters.

[hal2814]

Did you guys come up with the idea for the show or was it presented to you? If you came up with it yourself, how?

Budget

[wobedraggled]

What is the most you can spend on one myth? What is the most spent so far on one myth? Thanks, and awesome show

q:

[TheBeardIsRed]

What was the pitch process like for the show and what myths did you propose to sell the TV execs on it?

Re:q:

[Slayback]

From Jamie on how the show together (he didn't pitch it)...
Jamie: I was interviewed a while back about one of the above machines by our current producer. He had the idea for the show, approached me and there you go. I realized that I am a bit too serious and unanimated to carry a show, and recommended Adam and I work as a team. It turned out to be a good idea.

Source - http://www.joe-mammy.com/pages/features/hyneman/hy neman-interview.htm

Impact on the World

[verbatim_verbose]

Of all of the myths you have busted, has any one in particular stood out as changing the way much of the public thinks?

Gilligan's Island

[netglen]

QUESTION: Is it possible to create batteries out of coconuts like in all those episodes of Gilligan's Island?

Computer myths?

[Short Circuit]

Could you take on some computer myths? Like whether or not it was ever possible for a virus to destroy old monitors? It was rumored that if a virus could change the refresh rates to a too low or too high setting, you could fry some of the internal circuitry.

Re:Computer myths?

[harlows_monkeys]

We accidently destroyed the monitor on a "Battlezone" arcade game by putting it in some kind of out-of-spec mode. We were trying out a bug that we'd heard could crash the game (with the permission of the owner, who was curious and watching). Basically, you get down to your last tank, and then keep dodging shots until the game sends a missile. You time it right so that when the game takes away the enemy tank and replaces it with the missile, there is a last shot from the enemy tank still in progress, and you run into that shot and die.

What happens then is the game goes into demo mode. However, that missile is still there, and it kills the demo tank. The game then crashes, as the demo mode code did not expect the demo tank to die.

What happened in our case was the monitor then went freaky, and that distinct smell and smoke that you get when a monitor fries appeared.

We wanted to try this again after it was fixed to see if it was reproduceable, but the owner was against it as none of us could afford to cover the damages if it happened again (we were all poor college students).

Re:Computer myths?

[el-spectre]

Shit, I did that with linux in '99 or so (no joke).

Got this really cool, really bright white phosphor dot that took about a day to fade (despite the fact the monitor was unplugged).

Logic

[duckpoopy]

Do you realize that being unable to reproduce some event does not make that event impossible?

Critique

[CrazySailor]

How would you address the critique that you excessively extrapolate from a single data point to a generality?

In particular I refer to a show where you were examining fuel mileage on SUVs with windows open vs. air conditioning. As an engineer, I believe that you failed to conduct adequate experimentation to demonstrate anything other than results at a single data point and you didn't make that clear to your viewers.

Re:Critique

[afidel]

It also very much depends on the coefficient of friction of the test car. By using a big old pickup that already has horrible airodynamics they severely lessened the penalty for having the windows open. In a modern car with low drag the penalty for having the windows open is substantially higher as a percentage change.

Re:Critique

[VaderPi]

Many of the myths that they tackle on the show involve trying to recreate an event to ascertain if it is possible that the event ever took place. Do you ever feel uncomfortable about doing that? This does not disprove that the event ever happened. I will try to explain. You are making many assumptions about the event's preconditions and then trying to recreate them based on your assumptions in hopes that it will cause the event to happen. When the event does not happen, you conclude that the myth is "busted". But all you have really shown is that it is hard to recreate, that you did not know of all of the preconditions or that you failed to create the preconditions. This does not *prove* that the event *never* happened. All you have proved is that *you* were unable to recreate it. Are you ever worried that your less educated viewers will confuse your "busting" a myth as proof that it is not possible?

Source Material

[DigitalSorceress]

I've been a fan since your first season, and in that time, you've covered quite a few of the big, classic myths and legends. Are you ever concerned that you'll "use up" all the best source material, sort of running out of steam as it were? or is the internet such a fertile ground for kooks and bad jokes that you figure you can go on indefinitely (or at least until you accidentally cause the spontaneous destruction of the universe while trying to prove a theory about the second gunman in the Grassy Knoll)

To the Mythbusters whom it may concern-

[dslauson]

Dear Mythbusters-
It seems like it must be tempting to definitively call a myth "busted", even though the reality is that you just couldn't duplicate the results. Whether something is fact or fiction, scientifically a myth probably shouldn't be considered "busted" unless you have empirically show it to be implausable.

You guys generally do a good job of this, though on occasion I've seen an episode where you seemed a little premature. What can you say about where you draw the line, and do you feel like you generally do a good job of following the scientific method to get your results?

Also, can you get me that redhead's phone number?

Kari and Grant

[GigsVT]

Are Kari and Grant a couple? I noticed Grant let Kari use his TI-30Xa calculator. I can't imagine such a sacrifice would be made lightly.

Strictly speaking ...

[s20451]

Let me firstly say that I like your show as entertainment. However, I do not like it as a form of true skepticism or as science. What you do is fun and interesting, but it is not rigorous. I'm thinking particularly of the time you tried to flip a taxi with a jet engine, which failed on your show, but which actually happened in real life. So it's not obvious that a failure on your show means anything.

My question is this: are you taking yourselves too seriously as "myth busters"? (And a suggestion: why not let a physics prof supervise some of your stunts?)

Re:Strictly speaking ...

[Otter]

What you do is fun and interesting, but it is not rigorous.

Obviously, when they get positive results, they're meaningful. When they get negative results, they're showing falsification within the space that they're testing, which is usually well within any sane real-world conditions.

It may not be True Science, but scientific research as normally practiced is a lot closer to Mythbusters than to your Platonic ideal.

Re:Strictly speaking ...

[spaceyhackerlady]

The AC-vs-windows open myth was one of the few I found to be experimentally unsound, but since it's Mythbusters, I let it slide.

I sometimes wonder what was their most memorable Buster moment, like the time he fell off the life raft while it was being hoisted by the helicopter. Adam seemed genuinely upset at the carnage...

Jamie and Adam may not have flipped a car with jet engines, but Top Gear did. It doesn't take much to flip a 2CV, but the Mundano, er, Mondeo was another matter.

...laura

Blasting Zone Myth

[fatboy]

Hey guys, love the show. I was wondering why you have not tackled the "Blasting Zone" myth. You know, were you are asked to turn off 2-way radio equipment and Cell Phones when passing through a "Blasting Zone". I ask this because several years ago there was an accidental blast in my home town and many speculated on the radio that it was caused by RF from a cellphone. Several of us amateur radio operators kind of laughed at that because there are few guys that supposedly tried to set off a blasting cap with radios, just to see if it could be done. They went so far as to even wire the blasting cap into a 100 watt VHF (low band ~50Mhz) radio's antenna jack. Nope it didn't go off. Using inverse square law, it seems very unlikely that a cellphone or 2-way radio could set off a blasting cap at any distance.

Re:Blasting Zone Myth

[fatboy]

After doing research based on your post, I see that the current required to cause detonation in this case is 1/2 an amp. The only way that much current could be induced on that cable is if the antenna came into direct contact with the wire.

Seems to me they should install an inductor at the blasting cap to decouple RF from passing though it if such low current can cause detonation.

I would not want to work around this stuff. From my calculations, these caps can be detonated with as little as 1 volt present across the blasting cap.

However, I stand by my accertion that a cellphone could not cause detonation.

Myth Creation

[mrthoughtful]

Have you attempted to create any myths of your own?

There is a myth that myths/new words can be created and propagated very easily, such as the famous myth relating to the Dublin origins of the word "Quiz" - similar to memes such as "All your Base" -though you tend to prefer big explosion myths (and I know why!)

So - why not see if you can create a myth (that involves explosions, and bust your own myth, and then confirm the myth of being able to create myths?!

Budget restrictions?

[Mr Bill]

What sort of budget limits do you guys have for your show these days? I remember seeing some earlier episodes where money really seemed to be an issue (spending an extra $700 on helium for the weather baloon lawn chair seemed to cause some concern). Whereas these days you guys seem to have no problem blowing up cement trucks or catapulting a boom lift.

As a corollary: Which experiment(s) ran rediculously over budget, and which one was surpirisingly cheap to pull off?

Re:Budget restrictions?

[StormCrow]

It appears that they get a lot of the biggest budget items donated. Any large vehicle that's been destroyed/damaged has been donated by some fan or another. I'm also sure that there is a sliding scale of budget for "cooler" (read blowing things up) myths.

Geek myth

[Anonymous Coward]

When are you going to test the "myth" that Geeks can't get laid. Bonus points if the "testing" involves Kari.

From the Front vs. From Behind

[unipus]

Hey guys, great show! Just wondering, what's are the best and worst aspects of moving from behind the scenes to in front of the lens?

Question

[lunchlady55]

What is the most tedious part of busting myths? I'm sure alot of the fun and games gets on camera, but what are we not seeing and why is it still important?

Myths you cannot do?

[jessejay356]

Have there been any myths that were either too expensive or dangerous that you just would not do?

Are you Scientists or Special Effects Builders?

[arnie_apesacrappin]

When watching the show, the introduction emphasizes your experience in the special effects industry but I think I recall you referring to yourselves as scientists on occasion. The reason I ask for clarification is that you routinely ignore good scientific methods. The best example I can think of off the top of my head was the windows down vs. air conditioning myth. I know you revisited the myth, but your initial tests were poor science at best. Couldn't you have some sort of science advisor to at least make sure that there is some sort of logical sense to your experiments?

Even with my harsh comments, I'm not disrespecting your show. I have it setup to record on my DVR every week. I mostly enjoy the shows but occasionally your lack of scientific method is maddening. I realize you are probably cutting a lot out for the sake of TV, but could you at least point out that there are some possibilities you aren't testing?

My Question

[IvanGirderboot]

How did you find your Interns/assistants, or did they find you? ..Are they hiring?

Great Show Guys!

I can answer this one...

[Anonymous Coward]

That guy Buster has been pretty messed up a couple of times. I think he's had just about every part replaced.

Repeatable Experiments

[Aggrazel]

I'm a father of a 7 year old who absolutely loves your show. We have it on our tivo and I'm constantly pausing the show to ask him what he thinks will happen in your experiments.

You start every show with "Don't try this at home" but sometimes there are experiments that you do which you could try this at home. Have you ever considered having a show where you say, "DO Try this at home?" Its fun to see my child get such a love of science in such a fun way.

Re:Repeatable Experiments

[Rude Turnip]

As fun as that would be, I'll be you anything that some slack-jawed yokel will fsck it up and lose another limb. Litigation-ilarity will ensue.

Budget/Most Expensive Myth/Explosions!

[lividdr]

Love the show - it's spawned some serious fights with my wife over control of the TV at 9PM on Wednesdays (stupid "Lost" ending up in the same slot!). You guys have just about every geek's dream job - everything from mangling crash test dummies to driving a police cruiser by remote.

From watching the show, it looks like you've got a relatively tight budget on a lot of the myths you bust. Lots of the gear is picked up from junkyards, donated, or just lying around the warehouse. What was the most expensive myth to bust? What's the single most expensive piece of equipment you've had to buy while busting a myth?

Then there's the explosions. Things go boom a lot on the show. What's the biggest yield explosion you've ever detonated - I'm thinking of the cement truck that disintegrated in one particular episode, but there was also the critter in the drain pipe, the explosions in the pressurized airliner, the log cannon, the methane in the honey bucket...

Scientist on staff?

[caveat]

I've noticed you guys have a regard for the scientific method, and make quite an effort to try and keep things controlled with regards to how you run your experiments and derive your conclusions. Have you ever considered bringing a formally trained scientist onto the crew to make sure you're going "by the book", so to speak?

Groupies?

[Frankie70]

Do you have any groupies following the MythBusters show?

Different types of myths?

[loftwyr]

Over the past few seasons, you've exploded a lot of myths (please exccuse the pun). However, there can't be that many myths that can be tested using your techniques. Are you looking into new ways of testing different types of myths or do you feel the show has a limited run, once you've finished the list of commonly held beliefs that can be tested through blowing up a crash test dummy or other physical tests?

Would there be room on your show for phycological behviour myths through the use of a psychologist as example?

M5 Industries

[JBMcB]

Are you still doing special effects for commercials and/or movies, or is Mythbusters your full time job now? Have your mythbusting experiments helped out with your special effects work?

Re:Myth or not?

[__aaxwdb6741]

They busted this.
The answer was no, and Adam even tried getting shot by a penny in the ass for the purpose of ... showing his ass on cable.

This happens all the time

[neile]

In last week's episode Adam was specifically saying how the myth they were testing (tailgate up or down for better fuel economy) was one of the experiments where the result totally surprised them.

The same episode also had them surprised that a finger in the barrel of a gun, even though it couldn't stop the bullet, would actually cause enough pressure buildup to deform the gun barrel at the tip.

Neil

Re:This happens all the time

[TubeSteak]

Well since you don't say what they concluded about the truck tailgate myth, I'll step in with what I've heard.

My understanding is that when you keep the tailgate up it creates a high pressure bubble that forces the air over the bed of your truck. When the gate is down, the air swirls behind the cab and the resulting turbulence creates drag. The drag caused by the tailgate itself is less than the drag you'd have with no tailgate at all.

Anywho, did they test the effects of having a hard/soft cover for the bed?
Example picture with the tailgate up.

In the end, this is mostly mental a mental exercise for the /. crowd. I doubt even 1% of us drive a truck, much less anything with more than 500lbs towing capacity.

Re:This happens all the time

[Fishstick]

Yep, that's exactly what they found.

They also set up water tunnel with a model to try to visualize what was going on. Pretty interesting, and not what I would have expected.

With the tailgate up, the flowing air (or oatmeal particles, in this case) forms a pressure bubble in the bed that causes the airflow to pass over the end of the truck, reducing drag. With the gate down, it wasn't so much that the air swirls and creates drag, but they saw that the airflow came over the cab and slammed down directly on the tailgage, causing the increased drag.

Love the Mythbusters

[Exp315]

Best show on television. You guys have my dream job. I disagree with the guy that said the Mythbusters' results aren't meaningful because you aren't thorough enough - it looks like you are as thorough as it's possible to be under the circumstances, and you aren't afraid to revisit a myth if you find out more. I also agree with the guy that said you should do a show on computer-related myths (this is Slashdot, after all). But here's my personal question: How much help do you really get from assistants behind the scenes that we don't get to see on camera? It looks like you give plenty of credit to your on-camera team, but do you have other guys that routinely help you build stuff, or on-staff scientific/engineering advisors etc?

Who would you rather have on your team

[AngryMuppet]

BA Baracus or Angus MacGyver?

Your memory is faulty

[hummassa]

This show aired (rerun) yesterday here. Jamie wasn't capable of breaking the glass even with the amplifier, but Adam did it. The guy (a pro singer) broke it easily with an amplifier, and also broke it w/o using the amplifier.

Re:Your memory is faulty

[Andrewkov]

Yep, here's the website of the guy that can break a crystal glass with his voice (without an amp). http://www.thevoiceconnection.com/ There's lessons and stuff there in case you're interested in singing.

Blows Me Away

[TubeSteak]

Have you ever been completely blown away by what you've found

Well, there was that one show where they had they FBI hook them up with several TONS of high powered explosives.

Then they used it to make a cement mixer truck dissappear.
Here's the video (CoralCDN to the rescue)

That pretty much blew me away.

Guests on the show

[LMac]

Have you ever considered having "Guest Busters"? For example if a viewer suggests a good myth to bust and it makes the cut, they get to come on the show and help you guys out.

I have a question for the Mythbusters.

[sgant]

Is it true that Athena really came out of Zeus' head? I find that really hard to believe because we all...oh, what's that? Not that type of myth?

Never mind then...oh, and great show!

Shown vs. Not Shown

[Craig Maloney]

Hi Guys,

Has there ever been a segment that you wish had been shown, but didn't make the cut? Conversely, was there a segment that did make the final show that you wish had not been shown?

Controversial topics

[DavidHumus]

Have the Mythbusters considered taking on more controversial topics?

While issues like global warming or fake debates like ID versus evolution are too complex or philosophical to be simply tested on TV, how about something on the efficacy of various alternative medical therapies?

On completely unrelated topics, how about the myth that a penny dropped from the top of the Empire State Building would pierce someone's skull or the one that rice causes pigeons to explode?

Jamie's mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

On the show we always get to see Adam doing dumb things (we don't blame him its the only way he'll learn) I'm wondering what do you Jamie think the dumbest thing you've ever done on the job is?

I don't mean on the show I mean something back when you were working in the special effects industry, I think it would comfort all(especially Adam) of us to know that even you once did dumb things :)

Thank you for making a great and always entertaining show.

Forget Mythbusters...

[TheRealMindChild]

What everyone REALLY wants to know is (several questions, but one answer can nail them all):

- Would you choose to be a Super Hero duo, or a pair of villains, which would you be?
- Would they be original characters, or someone/something that already exists?
- Would you wear tights?
- WHY?

Socrates Death Ray

[scronline]

First off to the poster, it's not a "cable" channel :)

But my question is this....

No offense, but you guys don't have PhDs or anything like that. Doesn't it stand to reason that documented proof that students from MIT that could prove that the Death Ray could be reproduced show that it could be done?

Taking into consideration that atmospheric temperature will affect the amount of heat needed to cause combustion and the fact that the bay area CA is a constantly windy location with cool air constantly coming off the water which will also cool "the target". "The Med" being much warmer as well as closer to the equator (and thus more direct sunlight). Wouldn't those conditions be much easier to cause combustion? As a former welder, I know that during the winter for me to make the same welding runs (I worked out doors) in 5 degree weather vs. 80 degree weather I would have to turn the heat up a bit with the first stick so the metal could warm to a sufficent level. I could then turn the amps back down and follow my heat trail.

I'll second this!

[raygundan]

I love the show, and maybe this would ruin the show's mainstream appeal, but I'd LOVE to have a couple of resident Physicists and Engineers advising them to get more rigorous results. Things get waaaaay too oversimplified.

To add to your jet engine example, my biggest gripe was always their "windows down vs. AC" gas-mileage test. All their test could possibly show was that at the one tested speed in the one tested vehicle, that's what happened. Even their retraction and correction later was oversimplified-- they explained that at some point, the speed of a vehicle becomes great enough that the AC wins over the windows-- but they acted like that number is the same for all cars regardless of all the other variables. (engine size, AC design, window size and position, and overall aerodynamic shape, to name a few)

Science vs. Special Effects

[everphilski]

I'm a fan of the show - my wife and I catch it every week. However as a mechanical engineer there are a lot of times we are watching and realise that there are some basic scientific misteaks being made. For example the myth about the hair creme in the cockpit... the cockpit was pressurized at 5psi (i think, or some PSI) at altitude, **not** being pressurized at 5psi over ambient.

I guess my question is I realise the two of you and your newer companions all have a long heritage in special effects, but not necessarily in hardcore engineering (thermodynamics / mechanics / etc.). Where is the line drawn between science and special effects? The consultants are fine, but have you ever considered hiring a staff engineer?

-everphilski-

Pressure to always bust a myth?

[l4m3z0r]

Is there pressure to always bust(or bust as often as possible) a Myth? Many times I have watched your show and felt that you gave up too early or simply weren't trying hard enough, or I've come up with something that I'd like to try(are you guys hiring?).

AN ASIDE: I've wanted to make time to write ever since I saw your gun barrel peeling like a banana episode. First I'd like to point out my observation that the plug that you welded into the barrel would essentially garuntee that the gun wouldn't peel back in such a fashion, since you are forcibly holding the barrel shut so as to prevent any peeling it would be infinitely more likely that your weld would break(it did) or some imperfection halfway down the barrel would blow out the side.

ANECDOTE: My uncles shotgun peeled back in the exact manner in which you were going for. He tripped while hunting in the woods and the barrel poked itself into some mud, unoticed by him he continued hunting until finally he took a shot at a pheasant. The gun barrel ripped apart a la elmer fudd, we all remarked on how it looked exactly like the cartoon. I imagine the fact that he was not injured at all was just his dumb luck.

Fans' science

[SilentChris]

How often do fans question your results? Have you had any diehard science/physics freaks tell you you're wrong? Have the "redone mythbustings" occured because of these?

Great fan of the show, by the way. :) Keep up the good work.

Some myths, gotta be busted

[Ancient_Hacker]

• The Romans didnt have the number zero.
• If you let a bird loose in an airplane, the plane gets lighter.
• Glass flows, albeit slowly.
• Aluminum foil sould always be used shiny side out.
• Car oil filters are critically important (in their filtration ability).
• A car shock absorber absorbs the shocks.
• Placing a car battery on a concrete floor drains it of energy.

Skills needed

[skrysakj]

Can you list the core skills you would recommend to someone if they wanted to
be as adept as you at designing, crafting, and engineering things?
(For example: knowledge of welding, some carpentry, basic chemical interactions and electrical engineering)

Insurance issues

[mattegger]

Last year I heard an insurance underwriter speak about the challenges of covering reality TV. I don't want to lump your program in the same category of "reality" TV, but he did mention that there were shows or specific stunts that he was not able to cover. Have you ever been unable to debunk a myth because of liability/insurance reasons?

The dummy's name is Buster ...

[hummassa]

And usually, they go in person into the "dangerous" stuff, like quicksand, inside a bathtub when someone drops a turned-on toaster in it. And don't forget Adam lost an eyebrow once :-)

Brings to mind my question...

[_xeno_]

Given that you often refer to getting "lots of angry emails" based on the show, why would you agree to do an interview with one of the websites that's frequented by the type of people that generate most of that angry email? Are you hoping that they'll waste time posting comments and that you can let the moderators get rid of them as opposed to your staff?

Oh, and can you get Discovery to show the show at some time other than 9:00PM EST on Wednesdays? I have a commitment then and always have to miss it. (Silly family.)

Bloopers!

[binaryDigit]

You guys should easily have enough blooper material to fill a show by now, let's have it.

So, barring, that, my question would be, what are your top 5 "oops" incidents that never made it on to the screen?

Re:Bloopers!

[DMC_DMC_DMC]

See here for the bloopers: http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/vide ogalleries/videogalleries.html Besides, thats what makes the show great, is that they leave most of the bloopers in.

Bust this myth

[DaFallus]

Is it true that if I give $8000 and all my banking information to Sumbawi Katangi at First Nigerian Bank I will inherit Prince Muntu's $8 million fortune?

On the "jet vs. taxi" thing

[zanderredux]

Since we're getting back to the "jet vs. taxi" thing, one thing they didn't reproduce was the circumstance of the, say, "taxi ejection".

The taxi was crossing the runway at the point planes approach for landing. This might have been a key part left out since there is an enormous air pressure under the plane during landing, which, in turn, associates with the vortices created both by jet exhaust and wind passing through the wings.

The myth is plausible, as they later admitted (evidence from TV footage, right?), but incredingbly if not impossibly hard to reproduce.

Question: what they can do to improve mythbusting on these kinds of myths? Are there any methodologies in sight?

How does it make you feel...

[iotashan]

How do you feel when you've finished exploring a myth in front of the cameras, knowing that your results are being closely scrutinized by geeks worldwide, and, in a lot of cases, by experts in their respective fields?

working at M5

[kin_korn_karn]

How do you recruit talent for M5? What qualifies someone to work there?

Do you read Slashdot?

[rastakid]

Simple question but I'm curious: do you read Slashdot?

Ballistics Gel

[tdischino]

What's the naughtiest/kinkiest thing you've ever molded with Ballistics Gel?

Wikipedia to the rescue (as always)

[zanderredux]

According to this:

Toward the end of season two, Scottie Chapman left the show so that she could both pursue her true passion: metal working and, in her words, "Have a life." She was replaced by Grant Imahara, friend and sometimes coworker of Jamie and Adam. Imahara is most famous as the certified operator of movie icon R2-D2 for Industrial Light and Magic.

Myths to avoid?

[immel]

I've seen a lot of questions so far about myths you would like to do if you had an unlimited budget, if you were invincible like Superman, or if danger to people, property, or reality in general was no object. But is there a myth that you would NOT do even if you had all those things? Do you believe that there are myths that are better left unsolved or too controvertial (basically flamebait myths)?

REJECTED MYTHS?

[RUFFyamahaRYDER]

It seems like you guys are willing to try to bust any myth, but there have got to be some myths out there that you are too afraid to attempt to replicate. So my questions is:

What are some of the rejected myths that were too dangerous to pull off and why?

BTW - Thank you for having a great show that is both entertaining and educational.

Libility aside....

[DarthVain]

What is the stupidest thing either of you have done for the show? or conversly what was the stupidest thing that you almost did, and at last minute were like "Hmmm maybe not such a good idea..."?

Sortof true

[Esteanil]

Well, I remember watching a TV show from a Norwegian special forces (Marinejegere) training operation.
They exited a submarine through a torpedo tube at very low depth (apx. 7 meters), using oxygen rebreathers to avoid bubbles. It was awesome to watch and absolutely invisible from the surface.
So what I'd say is that *leaving* a submarine through a torpedo tube is possible, but being "shot out"? Well, as far as I know what "shoots" most torpedoes out is their own propulsion system.

Re:question

[harlows_monkeys]

does semen have a really high protein content -- in that it would be healthy for a women to consume regularly?

This is more of a Straight Dope question, and it has indeed been dealt with there.

OK, here's a question for the Mythbusters: ever thought of collaborating with others who do similar work? Say, bring in Cecil Adams as a guest Mythbuster? Or maybe Penn & Teller?

Which is actually cheaper, soda or ice?

[Deven]

Most restaurants seem to believe that ice is free, and therefore tend to overfill the ice to save money on soda. However, the energy required to freeze water to make ice should be considered -- is the real cost of ice actually less than the cost of an equivalent volume of soda?

Re:Which is actually cheaper, soda or ice?

[macoppock007]

I'll take a crack at answering this question. Please note, though, that this estimate makes a lot of assumptions. All assumptions are listed below.

1. You purchase a 20-oz soda (or 600 mL) from McDonalds. Let's assume they fill the cup to the top with ice, and let's assume that if you melted the ice, you'd displace 300 mL of the cup with water. (i.e. in order to "save money", they give you 300 mL of soda and 300 mL of water, instead of a full 600 mL of soda.)

2. How much energy does it take to cool 300 mL of room temp (25 C) water to, say, -10 C? To answer this question, we need to break it up into 3 parts:

a. What is the energy required to cool water from 25 C to 0 C? Using the equation Q = c m deltaT, where c is the specific heat of water (1 cal/g C), m is the mass of water (300 g, assuming a density for water of 1 g/mL) and deltaT is the change in temperature (25 C), the energy required is 7,500 cal.

b. What is the energy required to freeze water? The specific latent heat of fusion for water is 80 cal/g. So 300 g of water would require 24,000 cal.

c. What is the energy required to cool water from 0 C to -10 C? Using the same equation as (a) above, except using 0.48 cal/g C as the specific heat of ice, and 10 C as the deltaT, the energy required would be 1,440 cal.

This is a total energy requirement of 32,940 cal. There are 859,845 cal in 1 kwh (kilowatt hour). So it would require approximately 0.038 kwh to freeze this quantity of ice.

3. What does this amount of electricity cost? Assuming that electricity costs 10 cents per kwh (a high estimate), and that the freezer used is only about 10% efficient (probably a high estimate as well), then it would cost about 4 cents.

4. What does an equivalent amount of soda cost? A quick cursory search on Google found that 5 gal of Coca-Cola syrup can be had for $40.00. This is mixed 4.5 parts carbonated water to 1 part syrup, so the effective amount of soda produced by this 5 gal container is 22.5 gal. This comes out to be about 47 cents per liter; 300 mL would cost 14 cents. (This assumes that the cost of carbonated water, and the electricity to precool the syrup and water, is zero. So the effective price of the soda is actually higher.)

5. Conclusion: McDonalds saves 10 cents by filling your cup brim full with ice. With billions served, that comes out to a lot of money!

Questions...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

First off, i love the show. They seem like really nice folks.

Adam worked on some of the Star Wars films. Which ones and what was his specific job as apart of the special fx team?

It's nice to see a "mr wizard" like show on TV. Like Don Herbert, they make science look fun and exciting. Which is always a good thing in todays world. We need more American's motivated by science and its one of the few shows that easily exposes new people to science and special fx work.

Have shows like Mr Wizard, American Scientific Frontiers, Bill Nye the Science guy, Nova, and the likes influenced them? How important is the educational aspects to the program? I've noticed that they do try to explain things and often there are things that can be learned. It seems they balance the "awe" with the "knowledge" aspects of the show thus keeping it it fun, entertaining and still very educational.

Have there been any close calls? Anything that hasnt aired that might be of interest? :)

Correcting myself

[Esteanil]

After doing a tiny bit of research I see that "When the launch command is given and all interlocks are satisfied, the water ram operates, thrusting a large volume of water into the tube at high pressure, which ejects the torpedo from the tube with considerable force. In fact, modern torpedoes have a safety mechanism that prevents activation of the torpedo unless the torpedo senses the required amount of G-force."
In the aforementioned training exercise however, they did not utilize this water ram, merely closing the tube behind, filling the torpedo tube with water and then opening the other end of the tube letting them out. There was some risk involved as the torpedo tube was a rather tight fit, and there were places their equipment could get stuck.

Network says "DON'T GO THERE!"

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

What is the one myth you would like to bust, think you could bust, but the network says "NO!" for whever reason (danger, money, etc)?

Will the new San Francisco gun laws change show?

[Kodack]

San Francisco recently put a ban on hanguns in the city limit. People are not allowed to own, possess, manufacture or sell firearms within the city anymore. Several episodes involve busting firearms myths. How will this new law affect the show? Michael Scott Plano, TX

Myth-ing Proof

[caffeinebill]

Are there any myths you would love to test/bust/confirm but it is not possible to prove/disprove it? For example, have you pondered the myth that NASA filmed the landings on the moon in a studio?

Worst Fallout

[theonetruekeebler]

Okay, there are a lot of people and companies who have invested heavily in the credibility of various myths and bogosities. Some of them are scammers, and some are true believers.

What Busting has had the most dramatic fallout for companies and people who've relied on the Myth being true?

And while we're out it, how many times have you been sued or threatened with lawsuits?

Previous interview

[dimator]

It's too bad this chat transcript was not linked in the story, because it covers a lot of the more common questions.

Do you realize that you are inspiring a generation

[MykePagan]

...of budding scientists and engineers? Today's mainstream society treats technology as a black box, never to be opened or touched. Inquisitive kids need to be shown that they can take things apart, learn about them, and experiment with them. I don't buy into the complaint that Mythbusters lacks scientific rigor. Better to try things out in your back yard with only one or two data points than to accept things without thought.

I watch the show with my 9-year-old daughter. The highest compliment I can pay is that the show makes her ask a continuous stream of questions about what you are doing.

Energy drinks

[TheGSRGuy]

Red Bull, Monster, Rockstar, No Fear...there's tons of these so-called "energy drinks" on the market. But do they even have any tangible effects? What's really happening to me for $2.49? Is it just an overpriced can of soda?

Dangerous work

[signingis]

From the look of things, your "arena" can be pretty dangerous. How close have you come to killing yourselves or someone else in one of your episodes?

Changes in billing and useage of Kari

[Schnapple]

I noticed that in the more recent episodes instead of just Jamie and Adam in the "Who are the Mythbusters?" section of the opening credits, you also have Grant, Kari and Tory listed. It's still the two of you who get the iconic billing, but why the change? Are they more than just "Mythterns" now? (i.e., permanent cast members)

Also my Wife noted "boy they don't really make any bones about using Kari for sex appeal" and not that I mind one bit but I did notice that even before changes in billing and the departure of other female Mythterns, Kari was pretty much like the third host of the show. Were I to guess I'd say her increased useage on the show was Discovery's idea (since the audience is probably mostly male) - is there any concern about using her too much?

Didn't Air

[EBFoxbat]

Have you ever carried out an experiment with the intent of showing it on the show and then had it not air?

To expand on that question...

[Pollux]

I remember the episode where you were trying to make the Intrepid taxi tip over using a jet engine, but were unable to use a commercial 737 jet due to "safety concerns" with your insurance company.

What is going on behind the scenes that we don't see on camera to keep all your stunts and myth busting as safe as possible? Also, after seeing you turn a hydrolic lift into a catapult (hoisted up on empty shipping cargo crates, no less), how can a commercial 737 jet be considered unsafe?

Bittorrent

[boatboy]

First make sure the lawyers aren't around, then answer this one: Your show is available on bittorrent networks to download and watch when/where it's more convenient. Some users, however, could download the show without paying for it via cable service. How do you personally feel about this? (Cheated\Angry\Flattered\What's A Bittorrent?)

Migratory Coconuts

[dj245]

I've always wondered if Coconuts really migrate or if a swallow could carry one. Maybe if two of them carried it on a sort of line...

Kari

[NardofDoom]

Dear Savage and Teh Hyneman:

Are you upset that your prominence in the show went downhill after you brought Kari on board? Cause you know most geeks are tuning in to see the hot redhead, not you two goofs.

Sincerely,
NardofDoom

the myth we all want busted

[tomcres]

Can you guys like try to bust the myth that you can't read Slashdot and get laid?

How many times...

[jav1231]

I'm curious as to how many "You busted this myth, but my cousin's best friend's brother actually had that happen to him!" responses you get.

Since its slashdot

[del_ctrl_alt]

what kind of technology are you both into and using. (eg. PC or Mac? Windows or Linux? Explorer or Firefox?) and do you use it for any aspect of the show.

I've busted the mythbusters! Splitting arrows...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is bull.

I used to compete in archery tournaments; firing a traditional bow (longbow or recurve) without sights requires much, much practise.

Since it takes so much time to walk back to the target for arrow recovery, I would quiver 30 arrows and shoot at the bottom of a plastic dixie cup taped to a burlap sack full of cotton batting.

I *HATE* splitting arrows, as it takes time to make them.

I, personally, have done this before many times; I have also achieved a "perfect split" a couple of times, but as I said it isn't a good thing.

The mythbusters show sometimes falls far short due to underestimation and lack of repetition. How can it be scientific with so little verification?

Who busts the mythbusters?

Whatever...

About the 'science' used in the show

[Kickassthegreat]

I have heard several times of supposed myths which were 'Busted' on your show, only to be refuted by scientists, educators, government officials, etc.

A particular incident of this which comes to mind was the 'myth' of 'Urinating on the Third Rail', which had been 'Busted' on the show, but which was later refuted by officials from a large city (I believe it was New York) who stated that several people each year are electrocuted by contact with the third rail in their subways, and felt the show had misportrayed the safety hazards of contact with a third rail.

What efforts do you take to ensure that the science of the tests you are performing is valid? Do you have any sort of outside independant review (similar to a scientific peer review process), to ensure that you are not accidentally miseducating the public (either about potential real dangers, or simply by teaching bad science)?

Action Movie Ammunition

[CaroKann]

I have always wondered, if a real life person were to engage in a firefight like they do in a typical action movie, how much ammunition would that person have to carry?

Re:Critique (That's what "Revisited" is about)

[Goldenhawk]

Every so often they do a "Myths Revisited" episode, where they take into account user feedback about this very issue. In this case, they did determine that they had over-generalized, and in fact the data proved that at a certain speed it becomes more efficient to use AC. So this question is sort of answered already.

Fooling Police Radar

[KC7GR]

Considering that part of my job is repairing and certifying police radar and LIDAR units, I have to ask...

When you did the episode where you were debunking the myth that hanging a CD or something similar from the rear-view mirror would confuse SMDs (Speed Measuring Devices): Did you ever consider (or try) taking the microwave source/horn assembly from a junked radar unit, and mounting it in the car so it was facing forward (through the windshield) and powered up?

Or, alternatively, how about having someone in the passenger seat operating an identical radar unit to the one being used by whoever's measuring the vehicle speed?

With that said, let me add that neither technique would be very effective (if at all) in actually fooling radar units (the receiving unit would probably just interpret the approaching signal as a really strong return echo), but I would like to see you repeat the experiment under such conditions. I'd be curious to know how the SMD reacts.

Thanks much.

Batteries

[Council]

What battery has the most energy in it? (AA, AAA)

It varies with discharge rates, of course, but you can do a bunch of very public tests in different applications and come up with some total energy numbers.

Every time I see that ad that says "if you think all batteries are the same, consider this:" I always get excited, thinking they're actually gonna show me some, however biased, numbers. But they just say "famous person x trusts these batteries." It seems that if there's really a difference between duracel and energizer and the off-brands, whoever has more energy would quantify and advertise it. But they don't think it's a good idea, for whatever reason.

Wanna do it for them?

Science Education?

[radl33t]

I think your show offers excellent scientific exposure to lay people. Unfortunately, this seems lost on reflection. Do you think your show would better promote an interest in science if it was an explicit goal and component of discussion?

Getting Struck by Lightning while showering..

[TheHawke]

or on the phone for that matter. You guys partially busted that, but I feel that the energy source that you guys used did not have the voltage or amperage that real lightning packs. What about using a Quarter Shrinker to get the genuine results? The gadget pushes over 100K Amps @ 15K Volts @ 6,500 Joules, can reshape any metallic object that you wind in a copper coil. IMHO, that is as close as you can get to the genuine article.

http://teslamania.delete.org/frames/shrinker.html

And knowing Adam, he'll be giggling like a kid in a candy store when he hears the shrinker fire the first time at 5K Joules.

Van Eck Phreaking!

[zonix]

Could you take on some computer myths?

Oooh, how about Van Eck Phreaking? Not exactly a myth, but wouldn't it be cool?

Would it be allowed even?

z

My question...

[duke_cheetah2003]

I didn't have time to read through 3 pages of comments to see if someone asked this one: Has there been a myth you guys considered too dangerous to attempt to confirm or bust, if so, what was it?

Halloween

[BenderMan]

Given all the cool technology at your disposal, do you guys build costumes for halloween? If so, what are some of the costumes you've built? Pics.

McGyver?

[dascandy]

McGyver appears to be able to make anything he wants out of duct tape, a few pens, some rubber ducting, steel tubing and a torch. It does sound believable at times. Which ones would you like to try?

Process for selecting Myths to Bust

[PoitNarf]

I'm sure plenty of people are interested in how myths are selected for each show. Who gets to pick the myths to bust? Do you rely mostly on fan submissions about myths, or do you come up with the myths yourselves?

Cell Phones on Planes

[hendersj]

While the idea has been "posted to death" on Discovery's message boards, I would like to know why you haven't done a show on cell phone interference. I used to travel a lot, and it always made me laugh when the pilots would put their phones on the center console in the airplane, and then would ask passengers to turn their phones off. I've talked to pilots about the idea of cell phones interfering with aircraft navigation systems, and all they do is laugh; yet the FAA wants the public to believe that a cell phone being left on or operated on a plane will cause the navigation systems to go nuts - or at worst, that a rogue cell phone could bring the plane down.

Re:Cell Phones on Planes

[johnjaydk]

It mess up the mobile networks within the phones reach and therefore generates a lot of flak (pun intended) towards the airlines if they allow mobile phone usage.

Self Description?

[mcflaherty]

Here at Slashdot, we take pride in our nerd and geek heritage. A lot of the knowledge and pastimes you demonstrate on your show qualify as pretty nerdy. Would you describe yourselves as geeks?

Mythbusters Question - This Way and That

[joemontgom]

My question for Mythbusters. A baseball pitcher stands in the back of a pickup truck facing backwards. The truck picks up speed until it reaches, say, sixty miles per hour. If the pitcher then throws a baseball (in the opposite direction that the truck is going) at sixty miles per hour, will the ball hang in the air, drop straight down, or drop in a parabolic arc? I think the ball will appear to pause briefly in the air and then drop straight down (providing the ball and truck are traveling at exactly the same speed), but some friends think it will drop in an arc. They believe that the wind will play a factor but I disagree...unless there is a head wind or cross wind. I'd love to see Adam and Jamie conquer all the physics issues to see what will happen (although I do see a pitching machine or tennis ball cannon take the place of the pitcher for consistency). Joe Montgomery

Most requested myth?

[Yogger]

What is the most requested myth you guys have been asked to test? Have you done it, if not why?

Ooga Booga myths

[theantix]

I know at one point in the show you've stated that you like to stay away from the "ooga booga" myths, meaning I suppose the ones with a bit of mysticism attached to them. But still, a large percentage of the myths out there actually fall into that category. A good compromise might be doing a Halloween episode in which you dedicate one show to taking on a few of the most tv-friendly "ooga booga" mythbusting. What do you think of this idea?

Safety versus Ratings

[pisces22]

How much pressure do you feel to test more and more dangerous myths in the pursuit of ratings and have your safety standards changed at all for the sake of "good TV"?

Bad Myth

[WasII]

What is the worst myth that you have ever tried to bust or confirm. One that, once you had it going, was just vile and wished you had never picked it.

Snopes.com

[AdamWeeden]

Do you ever use the information at snopes.com? (My personal favorite for busting day to day myths.)

What Has The Show Done For You

[Morrog]

To Adam and/or Jamie: How do you feel making this show has impacted you, in any way? Is it something you're proud of and really enjoy doing?

No dust collector?

[jemenake]

On the Discovery Channel's discussion forum, they solicit suggestions for bustable myths. However, they also list a littany of "don't bother suggesting these" myths that, apparently, have either been busted/confirmed already or have been ruled out. One of the items on this list is exploding woodshop dust-collectors (ignited by static electricity build-up) in PVC ducts.

Why is this myth off-limits? It seems to have all of the MB pre-requisites: It involves something exploding or catching on fire, it's fairly easy to test, and, if you bust the myth, you can go overboard with the myth to force the phenomenon (personally, I've made a flame-thrower with a leaf-blower and a bag of flour). Most-importantly, however, is that this myth has real-world implications for how wood-workers plumb their shops for dust-collection (using PVC vs. steel ducting) unlike, say, exploding jawbreakers. Or, is that precisely *why* you guys don't do it, because it would have *such* real-world effect? Because MB might bust the myth, woodworkers across the country would plumb their shops with PVC, one of them would still somehow blow their shop up, and then sue the show?

Friends?

[reason]

On the show, Adam and Jamie seem to just barely get on. Is this an act to make it more edgy for viewers, or is it the reality of your relationship?

What's the real story behind Mr. Hyneman?

[neolith]

Wikipedia mentions in his write up that he "has a degree in Russian language and literature. He has had a variety of careers, including scuba diver, wilderness survival expert, boat captain, linguist, pet shop owner, animal wrangler, machinist and chef." Adam has (jokingly?) referred to his murky past as a special forces member, an outlaw running guns in the jungle and spending time in third world prisons. That's Adam being funny, but even the Wikipedia article sounds like hyperbole. The thing is, Jamie's such a man's man that I'd just about believe anything about him. The guy appears freakishly strong, can engineer anything, and manages to pull off the bespectacled / shaved-head / beret / moustache combo with panache. What can't he do?

Where do you come from? How did you go from scuba and boats to special effects? And why don't you drop any Russian on us for the show?