What myth result surprised you the most? More MythBusters-related Q&A here: ruclips.net/video/EEuhyrqpwWw/видео.html Join this channel to support Tested and get access to perks, like asking Adam questions: ruclips.net/channel/UCiDJtJKMICpb9B1qf7qjEOAjoin
oh, also, Tested.... it would be cool to go back to some of these myths and see what can be done since tech has gotten better since mythbuster days. you could bring in slow mo guys and other youtubers with expertise to help you.
I still think Adam's take on pyramid power is wrong, before they kept getting oogie boogie myths after they know that type of thing was not what they wanted to do and had the footage to show how it did not work.
Crimes and Mythdemeanors 2. Like, all of it. The finger print reader, the holding up a sheet to beat the motion sensor, the thermal lances cooking what's in the safe before cutting through, all of it.
One that was busted on the show, then later determined to be plausible, maybe even confirmed, was Carlos Hathcock shooting another sniper through the rifle scope. The Fat Electrician pulled it off.
a battlefield video just became available of a Ukrainian sniper doing just this. shooting an enemy sniper through the lens of his thermal scope at 800 yards plus.. id say the video shows it as confirmed. on a side note there is equipment available that can scan the environment and locate the shape of an objective lens on a scope or sight. then direct fire at it. very scary.
1st shot. Nothing seems difficult about that shot either if you’re an experienced shooter. Just can’t use the wrong ammunition, may I point out, ammunition that Hathcock wouldn’t have been using. They’re a group of nerds. Smart guys but by no means gun guys. Clearly because in a non combat setting, it’s an easy shot with that rifle.
They originally used the wrong gun the wromg caliber the wrong type of bullet and the wrong enemy scope😂. There were a lot of gun people super salty about that. Which was why they revisted it, made it work, but still used the wrong equipment to do it. Pewview and the fat electrician used the right rifle the right ammunition and the correct enemy scope. They then managed it in a single shot.
Most shocked I’ve seen Adam at a result was elephants are scared of mice. As everyone knows animal behavior in general is somewhat unpredictable but as soon as the elephant sees the tiny mouse it’s reacts immediately and avoids it very purposefully. Adam’s jaw hits the floor over that one. Rocket water heater was also a holy crap moment. I think everyone assumed it would explode or maybe go into the air 20, 50 feet max but it was launched so high you can tell by everyone’s reaction that was not expected and truly dangerous. Same goes for corn flour fireball, you knew it would burn but the resulting ball of pure hell had Grant, Tory and Kari running for their lives. I think this one of things that made Mythbusters truly great TV - there were things happening in real time that were totally WTF moments. The only other TV that comes close is live sports.
something related to the corn flour that isn't a myth, but an interesting fact is that their are documented cases of flour and textile mills blowing up because of the particulates in the air. like straight up, they made something equivalent to a bomb because of flour dust.
To be fair on the train question, when I went to see the working Big Boy steam locomotive a couple of years ago, we were told to remain 25 feet back from the tracks, for reasons having nothing to do with "suction". Loose items can project from cars, and not all the cars in a train are the same width. The situation is different for commuter trains -- but they still have a "safety zone" marked off on the platform.
There will be a change from push of wind to pull when the last train car has past. That may be added to ones (un?-...)intentional leaning against the wind push and make one fall. 😮
My take away from running in the rain... It does not make a big enough difference if you run or walk. But slipping, falling and making yourself a joke is a lot more likely when running in the rain.
Yep. Many years ago I was working at a car dealership. I ran in from the rain into the service dept. shop. When I tried to slow down, my feet simply slid on the polished floor and I landed flat on my back. I pretty much quit running in the rain after that.
The one myth that has always bothered me more than any other one that you ever did, was "Killer Cable Snaps." It was the only one where I actually posted it on the official forum back when the show was still running. The reason why it bothered me so much is because _you cut the cable._ The reason why it's killer is because it breaks from the tension, not from being cut. The amount of kinetic energy lost from cutting it is hard to fathom, and I think the only way to truly test it is using a very large ship internationally pulling the cable to its breaking point. But considering the sheer number of myths you covered that I _didn't_ feel that way... that's one heck of a run! 🙂
I’m not sure about snapped cables, but fast moving cables can definitely be extremely dangerous. I met a guy at a naval hospital who had his leg ripped off by the arresting gear cable on an air craft carrier and apparently that’s not all that uncommon.
My dad spent several weeks hospitalized on Iceland after a cable snapped on a ship and hit him in the head. Definitely not stuff you want to mess around with in any case.
I've always DISLIKED the test done by Kari, Tori, and Grant on bootleggers who would turn their car lights off and drive at high speeds at night to avoid detection from security checkpoints. To test this they went to a go-kart track, shut all the lights off, and threw obstacles in the way. Absolutely in no way replicating the myth. I don't think the bootleggers were driving on roads anywhere near the chaos of a go-kart track (they're shutting their lights off through a straight road and turning them back on), and they completely ignored the fact that the moon does illuminate a decent bit of what's in front of you at night. Being pitch black inside does not exactly replicate being outside at night. It legitimately felt like one of the laziest tests done in the show's history and it was infuriating for them to consider the myth "busted" based off of that alone.
I actually have a relevant story. My friend in high school had a car drive by at ridiculous speed in the middle of the night on a highway. Said it looked like a black Lamborghini, no lights, came out of nowhere. Long story short, some girl’s boyfriend gets arrested for drug trafficking. Part of the arrest was His black Lamborghini found with night vision goggles inside. They had gotten a tip of a car doing 120mph+ with no lights on a certain highway, so they set themselves up to catch them. TLDR: Night vision goggles
you'd really have to go to a dark sky area to test it properly. light pollution in the 1920s-40s was way less than it was now. and on a good clear night with a full moon, it's just a good as daytime.
I agree that was a stupid way to do it. How dark it's during night depends on a lot of things. Moon won't always be in the sky and migth also be in a phase that hardly reflects any light. Might also be cloudy which might actually add to light if there's a city nearby.
The original test of the "bifurcated boat" (done on land, with the boat surrounded by air instead of water - which completely changes how hard it is to deflect it sideways) is probably their worst ever. But I think they ended up revisiting it and doing it properly (in water).
As for trains, I often took the Tohoku Shinkansen from a local station where the express didn’t stop. The waiting room had hinged doors and moved inward when express trains came into the station and pulled the doors open from the suction of the train leaving the station. The train was on the middle set of rails between the two of the station. It seems to me things on the station floor would be sucked onto the tracks. I have never heard of anyone being pulled off the platform. The doors were later changed to sliding ones so they would no longer hit people waiting for the train….
I imagine that most of the myths start and finish with the wording of the myth. Slight changes to the wording of the myth might change everything, or even make the myth totally opposite.
I literally, quite literally, stopped running in the rain because of that Mythbusters episode. Changed my life. Strange such a small thing would have such a large impact but I guess that’s the Universe for ya. I became more patient, I saw interactions differently, had more thought in my actions. I will always remember that episode fondly.
Not to mention, if you run in the rain, you're going to be kicking up more water and the chances are greater of splashing a larger amount of water all over yourself when stepping in puddles. Also, bigger strides means more exposure to your legs, whereas walking with controlled strides keeps you legs closer to and more underneath your body.
I thought/presumed that part of what made the dimples on a golfball work was backspin from the club striking it. I swear I have watched a ball that has been well hit go out about 20 yards and then lift up suddenly. What I worked out was the first 20-30 yards was from the strike, then the spin started lifting the ball up, helping with yardage.
0:50 this always reminds me of a joke....little Ben was standing to close to the edge and heard his mother call out, "Ben get away from the edge or the train will suck you off!".....Ben cries out..."Come on train!!!"
The one that bothered me the most and I’ve never seen discussed was when Grant, Tory, and Kari tested weight loss due to sweating while driving a race car. They sweated buckets in a race car and then weighed themselves in their sweat soaked race suits. Maybe it was just Tory, but either way, it was bad execution.
I'd really like to see someone take one of those race cars where the "car" itself is mostly a pipe framework and the "body" of it is just a thin shell attached over it, and actually build such a shell with solid "golf ball dents" in it, and see how that car performs.
Richard Petty added a vinyl roof to his 1969 Dodge Charger, it improved his race time so much that NASCAR banned vinyl roof's. so my question based on that and your results is. does a dirty car get better gas millage then a highly polished one.
Not saying it was a result of the show, but I see so many car manufactures placing underbody panels that have dimples in them and I always think of that episode.
Rain doesn't fall at a constant rate (ounces or milliliters per minute), but it seems logical that reducing the time of exposure by running reduces how wet you get. I thought this was one of the sillier myths tested.
The question comes to mind about the golf ball divots in the car... Would the size of divots make a difference in fuel economy. Perhaps small ones the size of those on a golf ball would make more of a difference?
If it’s raining, the ground you are running on is likely to be slippery. Slipping and falling will certainly result in you getting wetter, and quite possibly in an injury. There are worse things than getting wet.
I don't know if you answer questions from these comments, but I got a real-life related one: Did you change some of your behavior because of outcomes of myths? For example the germ related dinner episode where you were having a running nose. Or the episode about christmas lights burning a house down in like minutes. Or a water heater potentionally shooting through your roof. Did that make you check your water heater more? Do you take more precaution regarding fireproofing your christmas tree? And do you shake less hands? (For example) Have a nice day! From The Netherlands.
One result I remember him being really surprised by was that elephants do seem to be afraid of mice. I always hoped they’d revisit that but not much else they can do with it
Seems like many variables to consider. How heavy is the rainfall? How strong is the wind and from what direction relative to your movement? How much water is already on the ground you are crossing and what the surface is like, which will affect how much water will splash on you.
One thing I would like to add about the walk in the rain studies is that the controlled vs. real-world isn't always a shoe-in to the controlled study. My favorite example is "tons of things kill cancer - in a petri dish" due to xkcd. The point being that yes, your controlled study is controlled, but if it's nothing like actual circumstances, there's no real reason to prefer it because it doesn't translate to anything practical. It can give future lines of inquiry, which is definitely always useful, and sometimes can help set up models that lead to better ways of thinking of problems. But, on its own, an experiment being controlled doesn't necessarily mean much. On the golf-ball car, I wonder whether the location the excess clay was placed played a role. If it was a rear-wheel drive car, it would be interesting to see if the specific distribution had more of an effect. Growing up, I was kind of poor so I would probably wait longer than I should to change the tires on my Ranger. When the bed was empty, I would spin out constantly because the tires weren't gripping properly. In the car, if the excess clay was put in the trunk, at least some of that increase efficiency could be due to there being less energy loss gripping the road.
But more energy loss due to increased rolling resistance due to the weight deforming the tires. Back in the day running radials instead of bias ply tires increased gas mileage.
@@Rgj_j Sure, which is why I wonder how much the actual effect is since there is this bit of an uncontrolled variable. If the test had been done using my old Ranger, it's possible you'd see a benefit just because of the better weight distribution for the vehicle.
If I were to try to write a formula, I know i would include Time, which (all things being equal) would make the walker wetter. Not sure how the runner’s velocity increases their wetness.
6:30 there's a 1.6 mile disused railway tunnel in Catesby, which is used for testing car efficiency. The one that irritated me was testing the age of sail/pirate episode wooden shrapnel from cannon fire myth. The cannon used in the show was a peashooter compared to the 32 pounders actually used on ships.
Ships of the line used a lot of different guns; HMS Victory mounted 30 32lbers on the lower gun deck, 28 24lbers on the middle gun deck and 34 12lbers on the upper gun deck, quarterdeck and fo'c'sle. And the 2 64lb carronades, but they didn't tend to employ solid shot very often.
There is video of a train passing through a station at high speed, and a cart rolls into it. This was a station with a brick wall on the other side of the platform and a roof. The test you did was on an open platform, thus the “suction” was not the same.
If anything, the fact that there's a wall behind you and a roof above you would _decrease_ the train's "suction" (i.e., pressure would stay _lower_ behind you, because there was no air rushing in to push you). You still get some (random) turbulence, but near the train the flow will be be horizontal (i.e., trying to drag you _along_ with the train, not pushing you away from or into it.
It's fascinating, and annoying, when people try to bust your results about a myth, ignoring the fact that YOU revisited it AND changed the result. Sniper scope shot comes to mind.
"Beer Before Liquor - Never sicker. Liquor Before Beer - Never Fear." was one that I felt Mythbusters got wrong. They concluded that the number of drinks and the order had nothing to do with how intoxicated one becomes. Pretty simple and correct conclusion. Your BAC would be the same no matter what. The problem that they didn't address is that if you are pouring your own mixed drinks later in the evening, and after consuming beer, you are more likely to do heavy pours. It was just a simple qualifier that they neglected to mention.
On the golfball car, F1 cars actually use the “teeny tiny vortex” concept on the bottom of the cars to help suck the cars down to the track. Cant remember any of the specifics of the designs to make them happen, but the whole floor pan generates them adding to the downforce of the car
I've been taugth by a physics professor (the european academic kind, not the USA "professor") that the amount of water you collect out in rain is proportional to the amount of time you spend in the rain. Do what you want with that knowledge.
@@wazoheat Not all who call them self, or is called professor in the USA would have the right to hold that title in Europe. Google it. There are some ambiguties in the USA compared to Europe.
There was one Myth that I think may have been prematurely busted. But you may have already covered this one. The prison break from Shanghai Noon; always thought the silk shirt used didn’t compare to the clothing used in the movie and testing it with shorter bars didn’t equate.
When I was a kid, my dad had a truck for a time that would suffocate you under the right conditions. If you sat in the back, leaned up against the cab, and got going 55ish mph, it became incredibly hard to breath. Suffocate is a strong word, but it got uncomfortable. Like how it's hard to get a breath when there's a strong wind, but in this case it was a lack of wind. You could feel it blowing around you until you hit 55 and then it pulled back and you were in a little vacuum bubble. That was also the speed where the truck leveled out and drove the smoothest. Idk if it's coincidence or correlative.
I've done high accuracy fuel efficiency tests (on a budget). We also went the route of weighing the fuel tank before and after the test. But the biggest flaw with your test is you are trying to measure the minute amount of fuel used in a mile of travel. To many variables that need to be averaged out with a bigger sample size.
One time I asked google if there was a golf ball car as a result of mythbusters. A number of companies tried it and found there was no difference. I have a feeling they didn't try it full size though
One of the possible inaccuracies of the golf ball car test is they removed the clay to make the dimples, then put it in the trunk. While that does keep the car the same weight it shifts A LOT of weight to the back, which could have also potentially helped fuel efficiency. Removing weight off the front wheel drive car, and placing it in the back helping it maintain momentum better. Can't 100% back that up, but that is one variable that could have affected the results. I love the idea of it all, and would love to see more tests done, it's a very hard one to fully confirm. There were many myths in the show that were hard to get perfect results and remain within the shows format and budget. But more importantly the show did a great job thinking about it and getting people interested in scientific inquiry. And in science, sometimes you get things wrong, that's why you do more tests, submit papers, and let others conduct similar tests to confirm or debunk ideas. Thank you and the team for all you contributed.
I legit recently watched Dirty vs. Clean Car the other day, so when Adam was asked what myth result surprised him, I knew instantly that it was golf ball car. And I was right! lol
My 06 Audi A3 had golf ball like indents on underbody panels so when that episode aired I wasn't surprised by the results. That said, nobody seems to use them anymore so there must be better ways to achieve aerodynamic performance and efficiency.
The angle isn't the only factor, though. It also matters how fast you run and how fast you walk. Because if you run across the street in 3 seconds and it would take you 10 minutes to walk, then running if obviously preferable. The fact that the MythBusters' tests showed the results to be so close kind of proves the point that a minor change in those speeds can flip the result around. And of course, if there's wind, then its direction (i.e., the angle of the rain) probably becomes the main factor.
@@Ron-d2s - I was thinking Super-Gran vs. regular gran. The point was to pick values where it would be _obvious,_ since the difference they got was so small to begin with.
I don't dispute that you found that walking in the rain got you less wet, but I would argue that it was an anomalous result. The math of traversing a uniformly distributed field of water droplets makes it clear that the more time you spend in it, the more water you should accumulate. If slower is better, then even slower should be even better, but if you take that to the extreme, you're standing still in the middle of the rain, and that's definitely not going to keep you dryer.
Kinda, it’s better to model the rain as a vector field and determine if a volume moving through that field at velocity X increases or decreases total flux with the field, bearing in mind that the top area of that volume will be different from the frontal area. There will be a forward velocity X that creates the ideal angle with that volume, that generates the minimum area, while also balancing with the minimum total exposure time. Am I going to do that math though? God no.
Running technique matters, if you're kicking your feet up behind you that's gonna pick up water and throw it up your back. A jog where you avoid kicking up in the back is probably ideal. If only the water from the sky is a factor, then faster appears to be ideal, but ground water interactions significantly complicate matters.
Can't remember the details of the "running vs walking in rain" episode but given the small difference, could it just be water splashing _up_ (from feet) ? Seems you'd get more of that running.
Didn’t expect running in the rain to come up, but it’s been the myth that I’ve had the most problem with since seeing it on the show. I don’t feel the variables were controlled well enough nor collection method reliable. I often think of a running tap to replace the rain (consistent water source) and race a cup under it at different speeds - the slower one will collect more water. The results on mythbusters just didn’t have enough data nor consistency.
Most unlikely result for me was the deep sea diver who gets crushed into his helmet when the air supply cuts out. To see the alternative body (was it a pig?) squished up into the helmet was as unexpected as it was terrifying!
Oh! That makes me feel good about my memory. I remembered that the results for running in the rain were fairly negligible, so I didn't bother to remember which result was on top. 😅
Id think the fuel efficiency test would be a lot easier with an electric vehicle. You can get a much more accurate measurement of the power draw than you could of the fuel flow rate.
What i have personally noticed running vs walking in the rain (because i never use umbrellas, and i run as exercise even if it's raining) is that when i run my thighs get soaked because i lift them more, exposing them, and ofcourse i get more on the whole front because i am running into the rain aswell, same conclusion as you got in the experiment. And even if i walk in the rain for like half an hour i never get completely soaked (if it's not windy ofc) because there is just so much water that can be soaked up on your shoulder and head. After they are soked it will either just splash on the shoulder and squirt water away but also the water will just travel inside the shirt down from your chest/shoulder and down so it travels much slower and therefore soaking you much slower than being directly hit by the droplets on those areas.
Given that natural rain always occurs in an uncontrolled environment, I fail to see how the results from an indoor controlled location are at all relevant to what someone experiences with real rain. I've had to get to my car in some absolute downpours and I can tell you with 100% certainty that if I had not sprinted to my car, I would have been completely soaked to the skin by the time I reached my car if I just walked.
Walking v Running in Rain: Well you guys did have the ability at the time to create wind using fans, which you could have tested. Also, if I recall correctly from the episode, you guys didn't test a variety of rain scenarios, just a specific flow rate in a highly controlled setup. So, while I don't dispute your results from the show given the parameters used for the experiment, I'm of the position that many others are, which is it didn't represent real world scenarios. Had I been the one to setup the experiment, I'd have done it with different rain types and wind types, using your original setup as a baseline. I'd have tested a misting rain, light drizzle, average rain, and downpour, with and without wind. Wind would have been tested at ground and upper level velocities ranging from less than 1 mph (a slight breeze), 5 mph (moderate sustained wind), 10 mph (heightened sustained wind) and 15 mph (substantial sustained wind) along with gusts of equal magnitude. This could have been achieved with some basic industrial fans which you had on set. My biggest complaint for any myth, was Archimedes' Death Ray. There was one setup described by Archimedes which you guys ignored for every attempt you made to test the myth. An adjustable parabolic dish comprised of a wooden support system, leather drum covered in small plates of polished brass, that could change its focal length. It'd have had a roughly 3 meter diameter (1.5 meter radius). I suspect this method may have actually succeeded where your other attempts failed.
I've known from the episode that you get slightly more wet when running, because it hits more on the front of you, but I still run a bit because I'd rather have a little more water evenly distributed over a larger area than slightly less all concentrated on my shoulders. Just my preference!
Corking a Baseball Bat is one that is annoying to me. Players still do it, when testing shows it actually kills distance. I get the main benefit is it takes weight off the bat, allowing it to swing faster. But the whole nuance of the myth was a corked bat is a home run hitting machine.
I wonder if the golf ball car experiment would work even better with an electric car. The power into the traction motor could be monitored much more accurately. Heck, the built in efficiency meters in most EVs might even suffice. Of course you would need ballast on the non-dimpled car to make it fair.
The myth that always bugged me was the 'marching on a suspension bridge' one. First the build for the test I felt was basically a static bridge made to look like a suspension bridge, but probably more importantly, I'm pretty sure the myth is based more on a pontoon bridge and as I recall there was no mention of that type of bridge at all.
I've been on a suspension bridge in a large crowd, and the bridge was starting to move, caused by the marching of the crowd, who weren't even in step. Led to the bridge being closed in subsequent years, to large crowds crossing at the same time, eg after a festival which finished at a specific time.
6:43 well... no, there is. And i think there was such a device back then too, but probably too specialized. There's liquid flow meters that can tell information in milliliters. I've seen them several times. It would require a custom setup to hook up tho. What would throw up and very likely threw up results to a degree ... would be how the engine runs. One thing i would've done different, is i would've hooked up the car to a axle dyno to eliminate all the variables that come with a moving car. IIRC, that wasn't the case in the show.
I must have seen that episode when I was 12 or 13 when it first came out to this day I still walk in the rain because of what I thought I understood from that episode lol.
the real hazard from the train myth is that the train creates a bow wave as it runs, and if a person overreacts to it, they will propel THEMSELVES too close to the train.
There was one i was never sure about the result ....that was people going down with a sinking ship as i felt that a ship was so much bigger than the boat they could test with and the fact open doors and windows could potentially suck u under. No idea of the maths but i would assume the boat they could test with is like 1% of a ship
@@engineer1692it's exactly that. You cannot swim in aerated water, is more like falling through bubbles than water. Small boat, even if there is enough turbulence to sink down a little most people can pop back up, but if it's a huge ship churning up the water with tons of escaping air around you it probably only takes a few seconds to fall/sink far enough there's no hope of getting back up in time.
I think they talked about how the Olympic swimmer they brought in actually struggled because he was so well tuned to swim in warm water that doing it in cold syrup really threw him off
It always amazes me how afraid of the rain people are. The same people that spend 10min in the shower 3 times a day. Hours in the pool, or at the beach. But can't walk 10 steps in the rain without freaking out.
My take on the running while raining is that for if you are going to get wet running, I think you are better off running because being less time getting wet is better than getting like 5 grams more water, what do you think?
I feel like using the 1 gallon container and driving at fixed speed until it drains and calculating mpg that way is easier than driving a mile and measuring how much gas you burned
Years ago you were testing whether Captain Kirk could have fired his cannon at the Gorn and said no! However another two guys tried the same experiment and said yes! WHO WAS RIGHT? No matter because I watched most of your shows anyhow.
i remember from something else. didn't like one of the big automakers in the US, post that episode, spent a lot of money, time and effort to figure out validity and implementation of the dimples?
That train myth was tested, shall we say, under rather irrelevant circumstances, for 2 reasons: 1. The myth check was using just a single locomotive. But a full train has a vastly different airdraft pattern, the worst drafts can be over a hundred meters (a few hundred yards) behind the loco along the train, and at the train end. 2. The myth was tested in an open field. Trainstations however have platforms with up to about 1 meter (3 yards) over the ground, often with platform roofs that are not higher than typical passenger trains, Usually there are also structures on platforms, and there can be other trains or building walls on the other side of the train and the other side of the platform. This makes for vastly different air flows, too. Furthermore platform usualy have a slight decline towards the edge, so water from rain or cleaning activities flows on the track instead of creating puddles. A few years ago Austria had 3 fatal accidents within less than 2 years, with toddler pushchairs rolling from the platform in a passing train with some help from the air draft. Austria has since equipped *all* railway platforms with plastic loops attached to poles or walls, to hold pushchairs in place. One more note: A least in Germany entrances resp. exits of high speed railway tunnels have to be adapted to avoid ultrasonic booms. That's because a full train in a tunnel acts like a piston, particularily in single-track-per-tube high speed tunnels.
When I run in the rain, I don't just get wet, I get sweaty as well, especially if I'm wearing my very effective rain jacket. If I walk, I get rain wet, but not sweaty wet, so that's a win for me.
With the golfball car myth: the people selling those products that supposedly increased fuel efficiency with golf-ball like dents probably thought they were scamming people, same as Adam did. Most were probably just as surprised as the mythbusters at that result 🙃
What myth result surprised you the most?
More MythBusters-related Q&A here: ruclips.net/video/EEuhyrqpwWw/видео.html
Join this channel to support Tested and get access to perks, like asking Adam questions:
ruclips.net/channel/UCiDJtJKMICpb9B1qf7qjEOAjoin
oh, also, Tested.... it would be cool to go back to some of these myths and see what can be done since tech has gotten better since mythbuster days. you could bring in slow mo guys and other youtubers with expertise to help you.
I still think Adam's take on pyramid power is wrong, before they kept getting oogie boogie myths after they know that type of thing was not what they wanted to do and had the footage to show how it did not work.
Drink Rain, it's better than earth
Crimes and Mythdemeanors 2. Like, all of it. The finger print reader, the holding up a sheet to beat the motion sensor, the thermal lances cooking what's in the safe before cutting through, all of it.
Why haven’t we seen golfball textured vehicles yet? I figured we would after watching that episode when it first aired.
One that was busted on the show, then later determined to be plausible, maybe even confirmed, was Carlos Hathcock shooting another sniper through the rifle scope. The Fat Electrician pulled it off.
a battlefield video just became available of a Ukrainian sniper doing just this. shooting an enemy sniper through the lens of his thermal scope at 800 yards plus.. id say the video shows it as confirmed. on a side note there is equipment available that can scan the environment and locate the shape of an objective lens on a scope or sight. then direct fire at it. very scary.
1st shot. Nothing seems difficult about that shot either if you’re an experienced shooter. Just can’t use the wrong ammunition, may I point out, ammunition that Hathcock wouldn’t have been using. They’re a group of nerds. Smart guys but by no means gun guys. Clearly because in a non combat setting, it’s an easy shot with that rifle.
As I recall, it depended heavily on the type of scope you were shooting at.
They revisited it and proved it
They originally used the wrong gun the wromg caliber the wrong type of bullet and the wrong enemy scope😂. There were a lot of gun people super salty about that. Which was why they revisted it, made it work, but still used the wrong equipment to do it. Pewview and the fat electrician used the right rifle the right ammunition and the correct enemy scope. They then managed it in a single shot.
Most shocked I’ve seen Adam at a result was elephants are scared of mice. As everyone knows animal behavior in general is somewhat unpredictable but as soon as the elephant sees the tiny mouse it’s reacts immediately and avoids it very purposefully. Adam’s jaw hits the floor over that one. Rocket water heater was also a holy crap moment. I think everyone assumed it would explode or maybe go into the air 20, 50 feet max but it was launched so high you can tell by everyone’s reaction that was not expected and truly dangerous. Same goes for corn flour fireball, you knew it would burn but the resulting ball of pure hell had Grant, Tory and Kari running for their lives. I think this one of things that made Mythbusters truly great TV - there were things happening in real time that were totally WTF moments. The only other TV that comes close is live sports.
Oh yeah, I love the mouse and the elephant. As well as the bull in a china shop!
something related to the corn flour that isn't a myth, but an interesting fact is that their are documented cases of flour and textile mills blowing up because of the particulates in the air. like straight up, they made something equivalent to a bomb because of flour dust.
@@oliviawolcott8351 Years ago we a local grain business building explode from dust. 5 or more stories high and blew apart about the middle.
I believe the FAA were very unhappy with that water heater explosion.
To be fair on the train question, when I went to see the working Big Boy steam locomotive a couple of years ago, we were told to remain 25 feet back from the tracks, for reasons having nothing to do with "suction". Loose items can project from cars, and not all the cars in a train are the same width. The situation is different for commuter trains -- but they still have a "safety zone" marked off on the platform.
There will be a change from push of wind to pull when the last train car has past. That may be added to ones (un?-...)intentional leaning against the wind push and make one fall. 😮
I always suspected it was a myth told to children to keep them back from the tracks because passing trains are inherently dangerous.
Similarly, you should stand back from a bus when it's approaching so that you don't get hit by the side mirror.
running in the rain - or at least walking in a faster pace - is in my eyes only a way to reach my destination quicker and get out of the rain sooner.
My take away from running in the rain...
It does not make a big enough difference if you run or walk. But slipping, falling and making yourself a joke is a lot more likely when running in the rain.
Absolutely
You might as well accept your fate and just walk no reason to trip lol
Yep. Many years ago I was working at a car dealership. I ran in from the rain into the service dept. shop. When I tried to slow down, my feet simply slid on the polished floor and I landed flat on my back. I pretty much quit running in the rain after that.
It's pretty much like driving in the rain. Going fast isn't the issue, but needing to change direction or speed suddenly will be.
The one myth that has always bothered me more than any other one that you ever did, was "Killer Cable Snaps." It was the only one where I actually posted it on the official forum back when the show was still running.
The reason why it bothered me so much is because _you cut the cable._
The reason why it's killer is because it breaks from the tension, not from being cut. The amount of kinetic energy lost from cutting it is hard to fathom, and I think the only way to truly test it is using a very large ship internationally pulling the cable to its breaking point.
But considering the sheer number of myths you covered that I _didn't_ feel that way... that's one heck of a run! 🙂
I’m not sure about snapped cables, but fast moving cables can definitely be extremely dangerous. I met a guy at a naval hospital who had his leg ripped off by the arresting gear cable on an air craft carrier and apparently that’s not all that uncommon.
@@banditrests Lots of one-legged sailors at sea, arrgh
Where is kinetic energy lost? The cable is stationary (and has the same tension on it) in both cases until it 'breaks', right?
My dad spent several weeks hospitalized on Iceland after a cable snapped on a ship and hit him in the head. Definitely not stuff you want to mess around with in any case.
@@fewwiggle When you cut it, it's not yet tensioned as much as possible.
I've always DISLIKED the test done by Kari, Tori, and Grant on bootleggers who would turn their car lights off and drive at high speeds at night to avoid detection from security checkpoints.
To test this they went to a go-kart track, shut all the lights off, and threw obstacles in the way. Absolutely in no way replicating the myth.
I don't think the bootleggers were driving on roads anywhere near the chaos of a go-kart track (they're shutting their lights off through a straight road and turning them back on), and they completely ignored the fact that the moon does illuminate a decent bit of what's in front of you at night. Being pitch black inside does not exactly replicate being outside at night.
It legitimately felt like one of the laziest tests done in the show's history and it was infuriating for them to consider the myth "busted" based off of that alone.
I actually have a relevant story. My friend in high school had a car drive by at ridiculous speed in the middle of the night on a highway. Said it looked like a black Lamborghini, no lights, came out of nowhere. Long story short, some girl’s boyfriend gets arrested for drug trafficking.
Part of the arrest was His black Lamborghini found with night vision goggles inside. They had gotten a tip of a car doing 120mph+ with no lights on a certain highway, so they set themselves up to catch them.
TLDR: Night vision goggles
you'd really have to go to a dark sky area to test it properly. light pollution in the 1920s-40s was way less than it was now. and on a good clear night with a full moon, it's just a good as daytime.
I agree that was a stupid way to do it.
How dark it's during night depends on a lot of things. Moon won't always be in the sky and migth also be in a phase that hardly reflects any light. Might also be cloudy which might actually add to light if there's a city nearby.
The original test of the "bifurcated boat" (done on land, with the boat surrounded by air instead of water - which completely changes how hard it is to deflect it sideways) is probably their worst ever. But I think they ended up revisiting it and doing it properly (in water).
I felt that was true for a lot of the "B plot" myths, honestly. Still entertaining mostly, but way less sensible testing methodology.
As for trains, I often took the Tohoku Shinkansen from a local station where the express didn’t stop. The waiting room had hinged doors and moved inward when express trains came into the station and pulled the doors open from the suction of the train leaving the station. The train was on the middle set of rails between the two of the station. It seems to me things on the station floor would be sucked onto the tracks. I have never heard of anyone being pulled off the platform. The doors were later changed to sliding ones so they would no longer hit people waiting for the train….
When my truck got hammered by some huge hail i would always refer to the dents as my “speed dimples” thinking back to that episode. 😅
I imagine that most of the myths start and finish with the wording of the myth. Slight changes to the wording of the myth might change everything, or even make the myth totally opposite.
I literally, quite literally, stopped running in the rain because of that Mythbusters episode. Changed my life. Strange such a small thing would have such a large impact but I guess that’s the Universe for ya. I became more patient, I saw interactions differently, had more thought in my actions. I will always remember that episode fondly.
Not to mention, if you run in the rain, you're going to be kicking up more water and the chances are greater of splashing a larger amount of water all over yourself when stepping in puddles. Also, bigger strides means more exposure to your legs, whereas walking with controlled strides keeps you legs closer to and more underneath your body.
I thought/presumed that part of what made the dimples on a golfball work was backspin from the club striking it. I swear I have watched a ball that has been well hit go out about 20 yards and then lift up suddenly. What I worked out was the first 20-30 yards was from the strike, then the spin started lifting the ball up, helping with yardage.
0:50 this always reminds me of a joke....little Ben was standing to close to the edge and heard his mother call out, "Ben get away from the edge or the train will suck you off!".....Ben cries out..."Come on train!!!"
I feel like several of the myths tested on the show weren't perfect, but it always got me interested in the subject at hand.
The one that bothered me the most and I’ve never seen discussed was when Grant, Tory, and Kari tested weight loss due to sweating while driving a race car. They sweated buckets in a race car and then weighed themselves in their sweat soaked race suits. Maybe it was just Tory, but either way, it was bad execution.
Most golf balls have 336 dimples, it varies slightly depending on the manufacturer.
I don't want to be QC for that plant... 335... 336.... 337? HOLD THE PRESSES!!!!!!💥💥💥
DIMPLES. I don’t understand why Adam has seemingly avoided using that word!
I assume you'd be more likely to be pulled towards the tracks as the train leaves rather than arriving, for obvious reasons.
I think they found that, too. But even then, the effect is fairly small, unless the station is in a tunnel.
You briefly mentioned the tailgate up or down myth which is one I regularly share with people
I'd really like to see someone take one of those race cars where the "car" itself is mostly a pipe framework and the "body" of it is just a thin shell attached over it, and actually build such a shell with solid "golf ball dents" in it, and see how that car performs.
Mexican jailbreak is a personal favorite of mine. Using a radio and salsa to corrode iron bars was brilliant.
Richard Petty added a vinyl roof to his 1969 Dodge Charger, it improved his race time so much that NASCAR banned vinyl roof's. so my question based on that and your results is. does a dirty car get better gas millage then a highly polished one.
Petty drove a Ford in 1969. The car with the vinyl roof was a 1968 Road Runner, only it was actually a textured paint job.
When I worked at McDonnell Douglas we always joked about how you could build an aircraft carrier with the McMaster Carr catalog
i feel the train one would have been different if compared to underground trains, there s a huge difference in pressure in the tube system.
Not saying it was a result of the show, but I see so many car manufactures placing underbody panels that have dimples in them and I always think of that episode.
Rain doesn't fall at a constant rate (ounces or milliliters per minute), but it seems logical that reducing the time of exposure by running reduces how wet you get.
I thought this was one of the sillier myths tested.
The question comes to mind about the golf ball divots in the car... Would the size of divots make a difference in fuel economy. Perhaps small ones the size of those on a golf ball would make more of a difference?
Speed holes are far easier.
If it’s raining, the ground you are running on is likely to be slippery. Slipping and falling will certainly result in you getting wetter, and quite possibly in an injury. There are worse things than getting wet.
I don't know if you answer questions from these comments, but I got a real-life related one:
Did you change some of your behavior because of outcomes of myths?
For example the germ related dinner episode where you were having a running nose.
Or the episode about christmas lights burning a house down in like minutes.
Or a water heater potentionally shooting through your roof.
Did that make you check your water heater more? Do you take more precaution regarding fireproofing your christmas tree? And do you shake less hands? (For example)
Have a nice day! From The Netherlands.
One result I remember him being really surprised by was that elephants do seem to be afraid of mice. I always hoped they’d revisit that but not much else they can do with it
Depends on how far you are going with running in the rain. If you get out of rain quicker you are no longer getting wet.
Seems like many variables to consider. How heavy is the rainfall? How strong is the wind and from what direction relative to your movement? How much water is already on the ground you are crossing and what the surface is like, which will affect how much water will splash on you.
There's also raindrops in front of you, so it'd be like standing in 10-26 mile per hour winds in the rain if you tried to run.
The one that surprised me the most was the hot water hearter blowing through the roof.
One thing I would like to add about the walk in the rain studies is that the controlled vs. real-world isn't always a shoe-in to the controlled study.
My favorite example is "tons of things kill cancer - in a petri dish" due to xkcd. The point being that yes, your controlled study is controlled, but if it's nothing like actual circumstances, there's no real reason to prefer it because it doesn't translate to anything practical. It can give future lines of inquiry, which is definitely always useful, and sometimes can help set up models that lead to better ways of thinking of problems. But, on its own, an experiment being controlled doesn't necessarily mean much.
On the golf-ball car, I wonder whether the location the excess clay was placed played a role. If it was a rear-wheel drive car, it would be interesting to see if the specific distribution had more of an effect. Growing up, I was kind of poor so I would probably wait longer than I should to change the tires on my Ranger. When the bed was empty, I would spin out constantly because the tires weren't gripping properly. In the car, if the excess clay was put in the trunk, at least some of that increase efficiency could be due to there being less energy loss gripping the road.
But more energy loss due to increased rolling resistance due to the weight deforming the tires. Back in the day running radials instead of bias ply tires increased gas mileage.
@@Rgj_j Sure, which is why I wonder how much the actual effect is since there is this bit of an uncontrolled variable. If the test had been done using my old Ranger, it's possible you'd see a benefit just because of the better weight distribution for the vehicle.
If I were to try to write a formula, I know i would include Time, which (all things being equal) would make the walker wetter.
Not sure how the runner’s velocity increases their wetness.
6:30 there's a 1.6 mile disused railway tunnel in Catesby, which is used for testing car efficiency.
The one that irritated me was testing the age of sail/pirate episode wooden shrapnel from cannon fire myth. The cannon used in the show was a peashooter compared to the 32 pounders actually used on ships.
I think Drachinifel did an entire video going over that specific cannon myth.
Ships of the line used a lot of different guns; HMS Victory mounted 30 32lbers on the lower gun deck, 28 24lbers on the middle gun deck and 34 12lbers on the upper gun deck, quarterdeck and fo'c'sle. And the 2 64lb carronades, but they didn't tend to employ solid shot very often.
There is video of a train passing through a station at high speed, and a cart rolls into it. This was a station with a brick wall on the other side of the platform and a roof. The test you did was on an open platform, thus the “suction” was not the same.
If anything, the fact that there's a wall behind you and a roof above you would _decrease_ the train's "suction" (i.e., pressure would stay _lower_ behind you, because there was no air rushing in to push you). You still get some (random) turbulence, but near the train the flow will be be horizontal (i.e., trying to drag you _along_ with the train, not pushing you away from or into it.
It's fascinating, and annoying, when people try to bust your results about a myth, ignoring the fact that YOU revisited it AND changed the result. Sniper scope shot comes to mind.
I honestly thought this video was going to be about plane on a treadmill.
Ohhh I was JUST hoping someone would ask EXACTLY this!
"Beer Before Liquor - Never sicker. Liquor Before Beer - Never Fear." was one that I felt Mythbusters got wrong. They concluded that the number of drinks and the order had nothing to do with how intoxicated one becomes. Pretty simple and correct conclusion. Your BAC would be the same no matter what. The problem that they didn't address is that if you are pouring your own mixed drinks later in the evening, and after consuming beer, you are more likely to do heavy pours. It was just a simple qualifier that they neglected to mention.
On the golfball car, F1 cars actually use the “teeny tiny vortex” concept on the bottom of the cars to help suck the cars down to the track. Cant remember any of the specifics of the designs to make them happen, but the whole floor pan generates them adding to the downforce of the car
I've been taugth by a physics professor (the european academic kind, not the USA "professor") that the amount of water you collect out in rain is proportional to the amount of time you spend in the rain. Do what you want with that knowledge.
I don't get your implication that professors are different in the USA than in Europe
@@wazoheat Not all who call them self, or is called professor in the USA would have the right to hold that title in Europe. Google it. There are some ambiguties in the USA compared to Europe.
@@wazoheat The usage of the title is different. Google it.
There was one Myth that I think may have been prematurely busted. But you may have already covered this one.
The prison break from Shanghai Noon; always thought the silk shirt used didn’t compare to the clothing used in the movie and testing it with shorter bars didn’t equate.
When I was a kid, my dad had a truck for a time that would suffocate you under the right conditions. If you sat in the back, leaned up against the cab, and got going 55ish mph, it became incredibly hard to breath. Suffocate is a strong word, but it got uncomfortable. Like how it's hard to get a breath when there's a strong wind, but in this case it was a lack of wind. You could feel it blowing around you until you hit 55 and then it pulled back and you were in a little vacuum bubble. That was also the speed where the truck leveled out and drove the smoothest. Idk if it's coincidence or correlative.
I've done high accuracy fuel efficiency tests (on a budget). We also went the route of weighing the fuel tank before and after the test. But the biggest flaw with your test is you are trying to measure the minute amount of fuel used in a mile of travel. To many variables that need to be averaged out with a bigger sample size.
I liked what a friend said when he went out for a run and it was raining -“You can only get just so wet”.
One time I asked google if there was a golf ball car as a result of mythbusters. A number of companies tried it and found there was no difference. I have a feeling they didn't try it full size though
One of the possible inaccuracies of the golf ball car test is they removed the clay to make the dimples, then put it in the trunk. While that does keep the car the same weight it shifts A LOT of weight to the back, which could have also potentially helped fuel efficiency. Removing weight off the front wheel drive car, and placing it in the back helping it maintain momentum better.
Can't 100% back that up, but that is one variable that could have affected the results. I love the idea of it all, and would love to see more tests done, it's a very hard one to fully confirm.
There were many myths in the show that were hard to get perfect results and remain within the shows format and budget. But more importantly the show did a great job thinking about it and getting people interested in scientific inquiry. And in science, sometimes you get things wrong, that's why you do more tests, submit papers, and let others conduct similar tests to confirm or debunk ideas. Thank you and the team for all you contributed.
Golf Ball Car is my dad's favorite experiment from the show
I was sure the airplane on a conveyor belt was going to be on this list!
I legit recently watched Dirty vs. Clean Car the other day, so when Adam was asked what myth result surprised him, I knew instantly that it was golf ball car. And I was right! lol
The result that killed me was Bull in a China Shop.
My 06 Audi A3 had golf ball like indents on underbody panels so when that episode aired I wasn't surprised by the results. That said, nobody seems to use them anymore so there must be better ways to achieve aerodynamic performance and efficiency.
Traction is worse in the wet, don't run on wet surfaces unless you're being chased
The angle isn't the only factor, though. It also matters how fast you run and how fast you walk. Because if you run across the street in 3 seconds and it would take you 10 minutes to walk, then running if obviously preferable. The fact that the MythBusters' tests showed the results to be so close kind of proves the point that a minor change in those speeds can flip the result around. And of course, if there's wind, then its direction (i.e., the angle of the rain) probably becomes the main factor.
3 seconds vs 10 minutes........... So Tom Cruse Vs Hector Salamanca?
@@Ron-d2s - I was thinking Super-Gran vs. regular gran.
The point was to pick values where it would be _obvious,_ since the difference they got was so small to begin with.
I don't dispute that you found that walking in the rain got you less wet, but I would argue that it was an anomalous result. The math of traversing a uniformly distributed field of water droplets makes it clear that the more time you spend in it, the more water you should accumulate. If slower is better, then even slower should be even better, but if you take that to the extreme, you're standing still in the middle of the rain, and that's definitely not going to keep you dryer.
Kinda, it’s better to model the rain as a vector field and determine if a volume moving through that field at velocity X increases or decreases total flux with the field, bearing in mind that the top area of that volume will be different from the frontal area. There will be a forward velocity X that creates the ideal angle with that volume, that generates the minimum area, while also balancing with the minimum total exposure time.
Am I going to do that math though? God no.
Running technique matters, if you're kicking your feet up behind you that's gonna pick up water and throw it up your back. A jog where you avoid kicking up in the back is probably ideal.
If only the water from the sky is a factor, then faster appears to be ideal, but ground water interactions significantly complicate matters.
Can't remember the details of the "running vs walking in rain" episode but given the small difference, could it just be water splashing _up_ (from feet) ? Seems you'd get more of that running.
Didn’t expect running in the rain to come up, but it’s been the myth that I’ve had the most problem with since seeing it on the show. I don’t feel the variables were controlled well enough nor collection method reliable. I often think of a running tap to replace the rain (consistent water source) and race a cup under it at different speeds - the slower one will collect more water. The results on mythbusters just didn’t have enough data nor consistency.
Most unlikely result for me was the deep sea diver who gets crushed into his helmet when the air supply cuts out. To see the alternative body (was it a pig?) squished up into the helmet was as unexpected as it was terrifying!
Ballistics gel with skeleton and fake blood.
Oh! That makes me feel good about my memory. I remembered that the results for running in the rain were fairly negligible, so I didn't bother to remember which result was on top. 😅
Id think the fuel efficiency test would be a lot easier with an electric vehicle. You can get a much more accurate measurement of the power draw than you could of the fuel flow rate.
Golf balls can have between 300 and 500 dimples and it varies by manufacturer.
What i have personally noticed running vs walking in the rain (because i never use umbrellas, and i run as exercise even if it's raining) is that when i run my thighs get soaked because i lift them more, exposing them, and ofcourse i get more on the whole front because i am running into the rain aswell, same conclusion as you got in the experiment.
And even if i walk in the rain for like half an hour i never get completely soaked (if it's not windy ofc) because there is just so much water that can be soaked up on your shoulder and head. After they are soked it will either just splash on the shoulder and squirt water away but also the water will just travel inside the shirt down from your chest/shoulder and down so it travels much slower and therefore soaking you much slower than being directly hit by the droplets on those areas.
I like how Adam licks his fingers like he would flip newspaper pages when checking the phone.
I reject their rain reality conclusion and substitute it with my own.
Adam's new theme song should be "I saw you walking in the rain."
A very interesting chapter was the one about the Tesla earthquake machine.
Given that natural rain always occurs in an uncontrolled environment, I fail to see how the results from an indoor controlled location are at all relevant to what someone experiences with real rain. I've had to get to my car in some absolute downpours and I can tell you with 100% certainty that if I had not sprinted to my car, I would have been completely soaked to the skin by the time I reached my car if I just walked.
When you walk in the rain you are exposed to the elements including cold for longer. I feel this should be a consideration
I like to listen to this guy, i wish he has his own show.
I would've been wise to see the golf ball car tested more than once to get an average and try difference sizes of dimples.
Walking v Running in Rain: Well you guys did have the ability at the time to create wind using fans, which you could have tested. Also, if I recall correctly from the episode, you guys didn't test a variety of rain scenarios, just a specific flow rate in a highly controlled setup. So, while I don't dispute your results from the show given the parameters used for the experiment, I'm of the position that many others are, which is it didn't represent real world scenarios. Had I been the one to setup the experiment, I'd have done it with different rain types and wind types, using your original setup as a baseline. I'd have tested a misting rain, light drizzle, average rain, and downpour, with and without wind. Wind would have been tested at ground and upper level velocities ranging from less than 1 mph (a slight breeze), 5 mph (moderate sustained wind), 10 mph (heightened sustained wind) and 15 mph (substantial sustained wind) along with gusts of equal magnitude. This could have been achieved with some basic industrial fans which you had on set.
My biggest complaint for any myth, was Archimedes' Death Ray. There was one setup described by Archimedes which you guys ignored for every attempt you made to test the myth. An adjustable parabolic dish comprised of a wooden support system, leather drum covered in small plates of polished brass, that could change its focal length. It'd have had a roughly 3 meter diameter (1.5 meter radius). I suspect this method may have actually succeeded where your other attempts failed.
I've known from the episode that you get slightly more wet when running, because it hits more on the front of you, but I still run a bit because I'd rather have a little more water evenly distributed over a larger area than slightly less all concentrated on my shoulders. Just my preference!
Corking a Baseball Bat is one that is annoying to me. Players still do it, when testing shows it actually kills distance. I get the main benefit is it takes weight off the bat, allowing it to swing faster. But the whole nuance of the myth was a corked bat is a home run hitting machine.
I wonder if the golf ball car experiment would work even better with an electric car. The power into the traction motor could be monitored much more accurately.
Heck, the built in efficiency meters in most EVs might even suffice. Of course you would need ballast on the non-dimpled car to make it fair.
The myth that always bugged me was the 'marching on a suspension bridge' one. First the build for the test I felt was basically a static bridge made to look like a suspension bridge, but probably more importantly, I'm pretty sure the myth is based more on a pontoon bridge and as I recall there was no mention of that type of bridge at all.
I've been on a suspension bridge in a large crowd, and the bridge was starting to move, caused by the marching of the crowd, who weren't even in step. Led to the bridge being closed in subsequent years, to large crowds crossing at the same time, eg after a festival which finished at a specific time.
I liked Pop rocks and soda. Nobody has died from that. Worst case would be a reversal like in eating competitions.
6:43 well... no, there is. And i think there was such a device back then too, but probably too specialized. There's liquid flow meters that can tell information in milliliters. I've seen them several times. It would require a custom setup to hook up tho. What would throw up and very likely threw up results to a degree ... would be how the engine runs. One thing i would've done different, is i would've hooked up the car to a axle dyno to eliminate all the variables that come with a moving car. IIRC, that wasn't the case in the show.
I must have seen that episode when I was 12 or 13 when it first came out to this day I still walk in the rain because of what I thought I understood from that episode lol.
Shooting through a scope, the fat electrician proved it can happen on the first shot
Thanks for what you do from a fellow adam!
Of all the things in your shop, all I want right now is that McMaster-Carr catalog.
They have an online catalog that includes files for 3d printing examples to test fit before buying the parts (free) which is awesome
the real hazard from the train myth is that the train creates a bow wave as it runs, and if a person overreacts to it, they will propel THEMSELVES too close to the train.
There was one i was never sure about the result ....that was people going down with a sinking ship as i felt that a ship was so much bigger than the boat they could test with and the fact open doors and windows could potentially suck u under. No idea of the maths but i would assume the boat they could test with is like 1% of a ship
What would suck you down is the reduced buoyancy due to all of the air bubbling to the surface.
@@engineer1692it's exactly that. You cannot swim in aerated water, is more like falling through bubbles than water. Small boat, even if there is enough turbulence to sink down a little most people can pop back up, but if it's a huge ship churning up the water with tons of escaping air around you it probably only takes a few seconds to fall/sink far enough there's no hope of getting back up in time.
I still think about how Braniac got a different answer then mythbusters on "can you swim as fast in syrup".
I think they talked about how the Olympic swimmer they brought in actually struggled because he was so well tuned to swim in warm water that doing it in cold syrup really threw him off
Point
You will get wet in the rain at different measurements of moisture depending on conditions per minuscule amounts
It always amazes me how afraid of the rain people are. The same people that spend 10min in the shower 3 times a day. Hours in the pool, or at the beach. But can't walk 10 steps in the rain without freaking out.
My take on the running while raining is that for if you are going to get wet running, I think you are better off running because being less time getting wet is better than getting like 5 grams more water, what do you think?
That's always been my reasoning, it feels uncomfortable being rained on, so less time in the rain is worth the jog even if I don't get any less wet.
I feel like using the 1 gallon container and driving at fixed speed until it drains and calculating mpg that way is easier than driving a mile and measuring how much gas you burned
certainly more accurate
Obviously the slower you walk the more water will fall on you. And clearly the reverse is also true.
as I recall there was one idiom test I felt missed the point of the idiom. but now I can't remember what it was.
The real purpose of this video is Adam's flaunting of the new McMasters catalog
Years ago you were testing whether Captain Kirk could have fired his cannon at the Gorn and said no! However another two guys tried the same experiment and said yes! WHO WAS RIGHT? No matter because I watched most of your shows anyhow.
i remember from something else. didn't like one of the big automakers in the US, post that episode, spent a lot of money, time and effort to figure out validity and implementation of the dimples?
I can't recall, did you compensate for the weight change with the Golfball car?
That train myth was tested, shall we say, under rather irrelevant circumstances, for 2 reasons:
1. The myth check was using just a single locomotive. But a full train has a vastly different airdraft pattern, the worst drafts can be over a hundred meters (a few hundred yards) behind the loco along the train, and at the train end.
2. The myth was tested in an open field. Trainstations however have platforms with up to about 1 meter (3 yards) over the ground, often with platform roofs that are not higher than typical passenger trains, Usually there are also structures on platforms, and there can be other trains or building walls on the other side of the train and the other side of the platform. This makes for vastly different air flows, too.
Furthermore platform usualy have a slight decline towards the edge, so water from rain or cleaning activities flows on the track instead of creating puddles.
A few years ago Austria had 3 fatal accidents within less than 2 years, with toddler pushchairs rolling from the platform in a passing train with some help from the air draft. Austria has since equipped *all* railway platforms with plastic loops
attached to poles or walls, to hold pushchairs in place.
One more note: A least in Germany entrances resp. exits of high speed railway tunnels have to be adapted to avoid ultrasonic booms. That's because a full train in a tunnel acts like a piston, particularily in single-track-per-tube high speed tunnels.
Running in the rain. Surely if you run you'll be in the rain MUCH less time, so run and you'll get much less wet.
When I run in the rain, I don't just get wet, I get sweaty as well, especially if I'm wearing my very effective rain jacket. If I walk, I get rain wet, but not sweaty wet, so that's a win for me.
How far are you running that you start sweating?
With the golfball car myth: the people selling those products that supposedly increased fuel efficiency with golf-ball like dents probably thought they were scamming people, same as Adam did. Most were probably just as surprised as the mythbusters at that result 🙃
Happy birthday to the brand new toss to membership that Adam recorded. 😜
lol, we did film a new one yesterday! Stay tuned.