Birds in a Truck | MythBusters | Season 5 Episode 9 | Full Episode
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 дек 2024
- #MythBusters #FactOrFiction
Adam and Jamie tackle Newton, the founder of the principle of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of momentum. They look into a physics urban myth. If birds in a truck take flight do they lighten the load? They call a pigeon wrangler for help.
Using science as a tool, Hollywood special effects experts attempt to debunk rumours, urban legends and popular myths that have captivated the minds of many individuals.
Subscribe to catch the latest clips and episodes: / @mythbusterstvshow
![ROSÉ(로제) - APT. (Band VER.) (With. 이영지) [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IW8qaemx74g/mqdefault.jpg)
The budget of this series always made me laugh cause you know the conversation went,
“hey we want a boat for a myth.”
“Oh okay we can maybe rent one. What were you planning on doing”
“Slicing it in half”
What strikes me is that the relative strength of the resin and fibreglass on small boat is much higher than full size boat, because on impact with a larger boat the material won't be so strong or rigid allowing more penetration directly into the front of the hull
There also is basically no turning in the full scale test like they wanted, the turn is just before the boat contacts
Yea, the thickness of the resin/fiberglass doesn't scale at the same rate as the width/length of the boat.
A small scale boat has a higher relative thickness. Plus there is less distance between ridges/seams/contours also increases rigidity.
When the boat hit the pole, doesn't the water prevent most of the force to push it side ways and avoid the pole? I feel like it's a massive oversight and water actually forces the boat steady and make it force against the pole way more than air that basically does nothing. It's not just about kinetic energy but also about something that doesn't move freely because of a denser medium.
Those speedboats are almost flying over the water. At high speed the front half of the boat would be out of the water.
I don’t think water plays any significant role here.
I agree without the physics of being in water. all their testing was pointless. Would have made more sense to hook up a remote control device to the boat and just run it into a pole in water.
There is a episode where they revisited the myth wiith the boat in water
Exactly what I was thinking too!
all execution of this myth shows that they have no sailing experience. Boat is always submerged to some level - and that badly limits possibility of changing a direction of movement as it did on a trailer. im absolutely sure that a precise hit on a pole with a v-boat would it it in half just ason a shown picture.
I want to thank you for putting FULL episodes on youtube, i have the box set, but its still lovely to have the ability to watch them and save my media from being worn out.'cos i would watch it all the time
@@hnojicA DVD gathering of multiple discs containers 😂
Why don't you just rip the DVDs to your computer and use Plex to stream them as much as you want? 😅
This is Not a official channel
I am sad therr are none in PT BR, im glad I studied and learnt english haha
@@borntoclimb7116 This channel actually owns the copyright to Mythbusters, so, in a way, it actually is the official channel
29:59 the wheels turn sideways but slide right across the wet pavement in a straight line. The boat never turns at the proper attack angle relative to the channel marker, and replicates the failed results of the small scale testing. How do they think this is a successful test 🤣
Because making a show is a bit different than you might imagine. The test wasn't perfect, but we can clearly see that a lot of time and budget went into it(having to schedule another shooting day, materials, etc.). Producers probably pushed it through because it was close enough. A big rig hitting a pole at the correct speed is view worthy for most. Additionally, they had to use a rocket sled(in a revisit episode) to split it in half, so the myth is busted. 25mph to bifurcate a boat is too little.
And the water keeps the boat going
@@gabrielv.4358 exactly! the water is so important! Grant says it's all about kinetic impact, but he forgets how much kinetic energy the drag momentum of water has, especially if the boat shape is designed to keep going forward. So disappointing they didn't think to ACTUALLY replicate it
As mentioned before, water drag is impressive, a boat is made to go forward in water, but at the same time it's near impossible to move a boat sideways in water, I'm fact if I'm water it'd be more likely to glance off with higher speeds because less of the body would be in the water.
I really hope some Mythbusters copycats does this properly sometime in the future
boat is like arrow id like you to go and try hit it straight to pole
When helicopter get airborne, one removes for example 300 grams of heli weight, but at the same time this heli produces down air movement which pushes exactly 300 grams of force to the floor. It will be nice to make some device that can make truck fly. It will look as if inside is some sort of antigravity device. But, that is not possible.
Thats pretty clear with an enclosed truck, i could guess that. But what if the truck didnt have a full solid floor and had holes on it like a mesh? COuld it make some small difference with the air being pushed away from the closed space?
@@otaviocamanho1135 I think it can some very small difference. Maybe not measurable at this scale.
When Tori demonstrated that turning into the obstacle at speed did the most damage, how did they not immediately decide to test Titanic myths about whether the boat would have done better simply to reverse engines, try to turn away from the iceberg, or (as I understand they actually did) both?
I feel that the water would add some increased resistance against the boat's deflection as opposed to air. Although they were essentially going for one of those "one in a thousand" situations/results, the fact that they have a photo AND police report should leave this myth as at least plausible
I couldn’t agree more. But also pretty confident they would have had to be doing more than 25 to do that much damage to the boat
Agreed, water resistance could've impacted recreating the results of the myth. There's also the angle at which they crashed the boat at top speed, you can see it scuffs *way* off the mark.
But hey, it's 20 years old and still good entertainment.
Made no sense they did the full scale test at 25mph after the boat expert and the small scale test showed more speed was required. Obvious it wasn't going to work. The boat was likely going 80-100mph
Also I disagree with the idea of adding a turn in... As given the situation it was likely a turn out in an attempt to avoid a head on...
@@michielwerring5846I think the water definitely played in keeping the boat at the angle of impact. Also the boat in water would likely still be under power pushing in deeper throughout the collision
47:27 YEAHHHHH 🤩🤩… OOOHHHHH😮😖 they bifurcated their reactions 😂😂
Thats pretty clear with an enclosed truck, i could guess that. But what if the truck didnt have a full solid floor and had holes on it like a mesh? COuld it make some small difference with the air being pushed away from the closed space?
It's possible? Given what I know about physics, the truck itself would be lighter, because the force of the air would be pushing on the ground underneath the truck. It's a bit odd, because the ground underneath the truck would still experience the same amount of force, so it wouldn't make a difference in the bridge scenario. But if you were measuring the weight of the truck just at the wheels, it might be a bit lighter.
the myth isn't about that part. it's all about whether the birds would make any change at all. and they didn't.
this is because in order to have something fly up, it needs to create downward force equal to it's weight. That downward force simply replaces the weight of the birds in the truck, making a net 0 change in weight of the truck.
the only way for the truck's weight to change is if the birds actually left the truck.
@@ettoresalvatore9437 That all checks out to me, and I appreciate the distinction between overall weight and weight at the wheels, because I think a lot of this confusion is because so many different people are coming at the discussion with different assumptions of exactly what is being proven and in what time scale.
I'm just picturing the pigeons in the air all getting pinned against the back of the truck when it starts accelerating. That would be a heck of a sight. I don't think the truck could accelerate fast enough for that, but it's still a funny thought.
@@wombatgirl997 I love weird physics thoughts and experiments like this, so I definitely understand the necessity of being specific. There's always technicality or complication when thinking about this, but I've become pretty good at spotting them.
Got a bit distracted by the signs in the background at 17:20, note the "RAW MEAT" sign to the right over Jamie's head. What is going on???
For the boat myth, if the experiment had the RIG moving on rails and the boat standing, you could perform the accident as in the picture. Another idea to explain the accident is if the boat crashed turning to avoid the Metal Pillon.
You'd need to weigh the pylon to be the same weight as the boat to make it stop, and the added cost, added risks... I think the producers would've won on this one.
The film actor, Mr. J. STEWARD, portrays Mr. C. Lindbergh's first solo Atlantic crossing, carrying an insect, a fly, as involuntary passager. Lindbergh muses about the question of extra weight, if any, during the fly's perching or flying inside the "Spirit of St. Louis". I used to ask the highschool physics teacher about this problem. Finally, a cogent answer. Well done Myth-busters!
The replication of the "hull's shape and the medium, i.e. the water, not air, would affect the point and duration of impact. What were the local currents and winds, and total load of the boat at the time of the original "accident"?
A propos the "straightening of the trailer; such methods were applied to cars before the "monocoque" construction technique. The correct frame dimensions used to be available for the shops. Like the Coopers, and Wheelwright's expertise/trade, it's all gone, along with the old gas-lamp street lighter of my youth.
The steel "Cardinal bouys", now plastic, used to have a tail of about 7 tons, making a total of about 18 tons chained, and anchored to the bottom.
One of those types, in steel, a bit west of Cherbourg, France, is regularly pulled underwater by the tidal currents along the Normandy coastal beaches. It, "The Sorceress", La Sorciere, pops back up to the surface...I wouldn't fool with nature's force. Slam the bottom right out of a yacht upon surfacing!
Thanks for your proffessionalism. I'll keep watching.
I feel like they should just angle the boat on the trailer, simulating the boat "oversteering" into the channel marker
I came here for this comment. If you had the boat flying into the pile at a slight angle, doesn't that direct the energy into the "side" of the boat replicating the turning action?
@@grahamsong4585 exactly! It's so annoying how simple that is
Thank you so much for upload
thanks for the uplad. nice to review episodes after some time!
You can also try using a cage for the floor fo the truck. Then the weight should change during flight as the downwards pressure of the air would not be weighed.
I really hope they had insurrance on that crane truck. My guess is they insure everything on that show.
What are you? Stupid?
"What Crane? The episode is nearly over.
Oh... That crane..."
That frame looks pretty roughed up, might have hairline fractures. Might be a write-off 😬
Actually, they disproved the myth right at the beginning. It depends on a lot of details, but almost certainly banging the side of a truck would not cause a whole flock of birds to fly around inside for long enough to cross a bridge. Also, if I was transporting birds, I almost certainly would not just pack a few birds loose in my truck. They would be in cages.
Hmm - what if the original boat had a split bow. Not a catamaran but a doubled pointy front
They got the boat myth wrong this time. If you take into consideration the square inches of the tires in contact with the pavement, it doesn’t even come close with the force of the water effecting the direction and vector of the boat. The boat on dry land with only a small portion of the tires in contact with the ground can easily hit the pole a glancing blow and veer off at an angle. Not so much in the water, it would take considerably more energy to veer away from the marker pole.
In the last myth, the crane operator was negligent. The crane should have been at a smaller angle, with the boat hanging further from the truck.
Negligent? Maybe. But the cranes can only lift so far off center. The farther you reach out the less the crane can hold.
@@trustyoldiron5416 I have an operator's license. I know the limits.
@@jeffreydonadio2081 Cool. How much further could they have run it out? Show your math.
@@trustyoldiron5416i think what he’s saying is the crane operator knew he shouldn’t have done that
the boat should have been atleast the length of it away from the truck to fall safely without hitting
he might’ve not been able to lift high enough and off center yeah but he shouldn’t have lifted it period (with the intent of dropping it)
You all missed a seriously important aspect of boats. Boats thrust and turn from the rear, so when you turn in water thrust is not only required, it exposes the side of the boat with those trusting forces. If you were trying to turn a boat to avoid an object last moment, it would actually push the outer side of the boat into that object. This cannot be accurately simulated on land with a front wheel steering vehicle and pull cable the way you all did it. It's a boat, not a car.
17:07 There's a box on the shelf behind Jaime which is labeled "Raw Meat"!?
Bifurcated boat: The team REALLY screwed this one up, they forgot about the pressure the water applies to the boat, which is why they failed to replicate this myth. There was no lateral pressure to push the boat into the marina marker pole.
8:37 But... There are three seats! 😅
Edit: Cameraman? I guess
And Grant gets motion sickness. Hope he took his dramamine.
Please post season 1
YES! If only so we can see the goddess Scottie Chapman!
The little front wheels turned but the momentum of the boat/trailer pushed right over their traction and they just skidded in the same direction they were traveling. Any turn was very minimal.
Also not analogous to the way a powerboat turns.
Also, once the tie down straps snapped all forward thrust on the boat was lost, whereas a boat engine would have continued the thrust.
Not a very analogous test. MB usually did better.
(I do think the claimed 25mph was likely low. Could have checked the plane speed of that boat with that engine)
The powerboat was, in all likelihood, going over 40km/h. "Yeah, I was going full tilt and not paying attention like a degenerate idiot" doesn't exactly go down well with insurance companies, the law or indeed the general public. It also isn't as eye catching in the papers, they're not published to keep you informed, "news"papers are purely to make money.
They completely ignored that the chopper lifting should make the trailer slightly heavier until it hovers.
(You have to push more than the weight of the chopper to gain altitude)
It looks like you can see that on the data curve too.
You can see it in the data, the problem is that the helicopter is not going up very fast therefor the force required for that acceleration is maybe 10-30 grams? not enough to see on a loadcell
I was super impressed at the resolution on the load cells. You can see something like what you described in the graph with the pigeons at 41:20. A very nice steady flat weight, then a small disturbance as the mechanism is actuated to drop the pigeons. Then a significant weight reduction, because the pigeons are in free fall. Then a couple significant increases as the pigeons hit the floor and all start taking off. Then a much noisier signal that stays at the same average weight while the pigeons are all actively flying.
It all makes perfect sense, and Adam (maybe accidentally) explained the whole thing in a throw away line when he said "we could be dancing around in the back of the truck so we need to graph the average weight over time". If you think about it, there is no physics difference between a bunch of birds flapping their wings in the back of a truck and a bunch of people jumping up and down in the back of a truck. The average weight of the truck will stay the same, the signal will just get noisier based on who is jumping and who is landing at any given point in time.
The pigeon myth is curious because OBVIOUSLY a truck can't fly, but you also get to think about why things CAN fly. Perfect myth 👍
OMG Jamie laughed in this episode! That was almost creepy :) Just kidding, it is good to see him laugh for a change.
Rip grant
And Jess
❤
14:23 ROFL ! :)))))))
Did they actually use the blue rope for breakaways?
I need to know
Full episodes on youtube...what is this sorcery
That itself is a myth until today
I wanna know if Chris is still alive after wrecking Jamie's helicopter.
We didn't see him again did we ? 😂
The boat probaly glided the water a little side ways the way Tory hit the pole. If you think about it, in the water the boat could slide even side ways in water but on land it only goes forward
The birds one makes no sense. If the truck had so many birds in it that it was over the weight limit for the bridges, they wouldn’t have room to fly. While the question of whether the birds being on the ground or in the air would affect the weight of the vehicle is interesting, but the premise is nonsense.
I think it's really funny that in these comments the myth that was causing so much disagreement when this originally aired (the birds in the truck) is pretty much a non-issue but the one they obviously didn't see the need to worry too much about (the boat) is causing the majority of the discussion.
For what it is worth, something tells me whoever managed to wreck the original boat that started this story may have been *slightly* dishonest in reporting how fast they were going when they hit that pole (and by "slightly" I mean "significantly")...
Did no one take into account the water? Water has waves. Was the boat riding the crest of the wave or down in the trough? I've never seen a channel marker set into the bottom of a channel either. 9am
If you're in a car and you toss a ball in the air, does it get lighter when you toss the ball?
Isn't there a difference whether you apply the force as a pull from a truck or as a push from rear mounted engine? Common sense tells me there could be difference in behavior of the boat being crashed depending on how the force is applied.
The difference is slight but the 2 big things are the water resistance to allow the craft to slide along the marker and when they had the trailer turn it was the wrong end of the trailer. Mostly every boat is rear steer similar to a forklift. That difference in turn point changes how direct the impact is and even further reduces the chance to skim the marker
I absolutely loved this episode. I remember the ending to this so vividly because I laughed so hard. Everyone is immediately sooooo pumped even before the boat hits the ground. Then they all go "oohhhhhh" in disappointment as soon as it lands on the truck.
Funniest thing ever.
So basically , every action has an equal and opposite reaction .
The bird myth: the mass of the container + contents remains static regardless of whether the birds are flying or standing, so of course the weight stays the same.
Why are people even questioning this?
Because most people are bad at envisioning physics problems.
It's like the other one of throwing a ball out of the back of a truck at the same speed - does it fall straight down or go outwards?
Mass is irrelevant here, as we’re measuring weight not a mass. Weight is a force applied to the base, which is definitely changing. Birds flapping wings spend energy which is heating the container, but weight will change. You don’t need birds for such test - try it with a drone in cardboard box.
Thwy forgot to test it with a mesh trailer
31:00 bro there’s no way it did any turning
They got the angle at which the "sea beacon" hit the boat's hull wrong. At this angle, the force vector remains parallel to the edge of the boat.
Pidgeon Annoying Technic PAT. Maybe there would be a market for them…
I hope whoever came up with Mythity Split got paid well
Regarding the story behind the birds on a truck myth, it seems like the first test/question should have been "how many birds would you need inside a truck of a given size to make that truck overweight?"
Trucks are designed to carry loads that are more dense than a pigeon. So i would think that it would be impossible to fill the same volume with a less dense material and somehow end up overweight.
And if you could, id think the truck would be packed so tight they wouldnt have any room to fly.
why not take a drone... maybe better for constant tests
Those weren’t a thing back then
The boat one the wind and waves
A wave at the last moment
Pushed it into the pole
The wave is the side energy
Stopping the deflection
Could also just be the boats driver trying to steer out of the way last second.
Tory: "Jess, are you ready?"
Jess: "I'm moore than ready."
I see what you did there Jess 😂
r.i.p. the crane
But what if there are BIRDS AND a HELI in the truck ? 👹👹👹
41:05 there it is. also fuck google AI because it says it does make a difference
Rewatching these reminds me why I had crush on Kari as teenager
She is still a hot MILF ;-)
I wish they would have reemoved the roof of the trailer and the flown the helicopter.
Did Tori just pirate a boat.......?
Jus tot address the couple of comments here and any other interested future viewers about the boat and water resistance being a factor. There's sideways resistance as you would have with any moving object through a medium, whether air or liquid. However, while they didn't test for it, it's insignificant in this case for a boat and they probably knew that. Ships are designed with keels that help resist sideways motion, because the physics of an object that only partially displaces water is not favorable in that respect. That is why when you leave boats unmoored, you find they do not drift in anything resembling a straight line.
This goes double for a speedboat. Unlike a ship, a speedboat is designed to raise itself out of the water as much as possible at high speed, in order to reduce fluidic drag. They also generally do not have deep keels, to reduce displacement in general and allow easier handling and low speeds. Only forward momentum (a lot of it) keeps it going in a straight line. There's still some sideways resistance, but its really insignificant compared to the huge amount of forward momentum a speedboat has.
If the sideways resistance on a ship or boat's keel was so significant that it would affect the result of this experiment, they'd capsize if they were to ever made to drift sideways.
> That is why when you leave boats unmoored, you find they do not drift in anything resembling a straight line.
I'm sorry, but this is totally irrelevant to your point.
A boat drifts away if you leave it alone simply because the water moves it around. At that point, literally anything and everything will move in accordance with the direction of the water.
Think of it like this. You have a giant conveyor belt and an RC car on it. On the conveyor belt you have little walls of rubber that the RC car easily pushes past when running. That means that you can ride it all around in all directions. But turn off the engine, and the car will only go one way. The same way as the conveyor belt. Even if you turn the engine on though, at low enough throttle, the rubber 'walls' will be stiff enough to push it. That's what happens to a boat that just barely flows and is pushed by waves around.
You have to understand that when the boat impacts an obstacle, the amount of kinetic energy sent outside suddenly spikes. This, due to water being incompressible means that water at the very moment of impact, in every part the boat touches (and at 25mph this is a larger surface than at high speeds), becomes significantly more resistant.
Now, is that enough to pierce into it? Not necessarily. There's still the question of how resistant the boat itself is. But this does mean that if they tried to replicate the exact same scenario that REALLY bifurcated that boat from the photo, they would be able to replicate those results on water but would NOT be able to replicate them on land. They'd need to move it more strictly to the side, or use more kinetic energy, or use some sort of sled etc. Because water does have an impact in making it easier to focus that energy to go through the boat, rather than towards pushing it away.
You don't get to test a "myth" and draw any conclusion from the results if you don't even attempt to replicate the most basic of variables.
This was one of the worst of uncountable instances of this in Mythbusters.
love how they built a pidgeon torture chamber just to get to the truth.
With ones like this bird myth I wish they'd go more heavy in to the science of it, because my brain can't wrap it's self around the concept that the birds flying don't lower the weight of the truck. It seems common sense that if you remove the weight from an object the object should weigh less.
The truck weight stays the same because birds generate force in a downward direction when they flap their wings. Since there's no breeze to sail on, they're propelling themselves upwards by pushing down on the air. Air goes down, bird goes up.
What amazed me about the birds in the truck was how wildly wrong the physicist's description of a birds wing action was. It's not "pushing air down." The dynamic movement of the bird's wing (its shape changes as it moves, creates several vortices that combine to create high pressure below the bird and low pressure above it. This effect is _extremely_ localized. You don't get any noticeable downdraft (like for a helicopter) from most birds. (You do get downdraft from some very large birds like geese and swans, but mostly during landing.
KNOW ANY BIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD BRAIN JOKES?
i think the pigeons in the truck can be true on some level if the track's side is open or let air out some of the downward force will push on the ground outside of the truck and can make a few gramm lighter the truck. not much but a little bit. i tested it in mini scale with my toy helicopter and it works out.
The boat myth want even close to properly tested. Water would keep the boat from bouncing off the pole. Their boat was extremely light... Not much forward momentum to keep going forward with such a light boat. Dad that they didn't even think of these things.
Probably did, but logistics got in the way.
Adam didn't clap Grants hand 😢
oh, crashing a boat like that is possible at 25 Mph... Only the way Mythbusters do it. Making it so it is totally not the same as in real, then crash it. DUUUUH
Looool, Grant is explaining that physics in water behaves different then on a road. It behaves exactly the same, only the water keeps it better in place. There are some extra forces here at play. They don't behave different. Dummy
yea, sure dude..... Even that can't explain the weird way of compare things.
The boat one was not good, the boat was only hitting the pole when the boat was already half-way the pole, the second, they didn't do it in the water, which has density and would not let the boat stir to the side as easy. So I don't count it as busted. But I will be honest, the trio always kind of bugged me how they do their experiments.
I'm sure they probably wanted to do it in water, but I would estimate that setting that up would probably double their production costs or more. It's a tv show, not a lab. It's never going to be perfect at a reasonable cost. Then you have the insurance rider and all that. They even discuss that the logistics of doing full scale on water just aren't reasonable. I've been thinking about it for a bit and I don't even know how you'd go about trying to do it on water. Too many variables and difficult to control, difficult to reset. Etc
@@FreejackVesa If they couldn't do it, they shouldn't have tried then, calling a myth busted because they can't do it accuratly is not an excuse.
Already know the answer but it was def not fully what I expected
It’s a little known fact that pigeons are one of the few species of birds that feed their young milk and normally only mammals feed their young milk
Pigeons are vermin.
I've raised Pigeons before. They feed their young the same as most bird species do with regurgitated food out of their stomach.
@@ArtificialArtistNah, it's true, they do produce milk. The entire reason pigeons can only lay up to two eggs is because they can't produce enough milk to feed more than two squabs. The squabs are fed only milk for the first week or so, after that the parents start introducing regurgitated food, and after two weeks they are only eating regurgitated food.
Loadcells detect force, not pressure...🧐🧐
The area is known and they're merging all 4 readings into a single number already, so it could easily be converted to pressure before the program graphs it.
Finnish science
I can’t believe “is that boat-o-shopped?” at 6:05 got glossed over 😢
You can’t test a boat myth on land. Every detail about it is wrong. Why waste so much time and money to intentionally get it wrong?
Because... SCIENCE™!!!
Because it would probably double or more production costs setting it up in water. That's my guess. They even allude to that in the first ten minutes saying they cant afford this boat and they are anchored at square one. I know they are talking about that specific boat but I get the feeling they were really talking about production costs on water. But who knows, I could be wrong. How would one even get that boat moving at the right speeds on water at a reasonable cost - I think it was just too expensive and probably too dangerous to do it full scale on water.
They also said that most of the myth was about the kinetics, not the water. Not to mention, someone else mentioned that production costs would almost certainly be higher
Keri had a much nicer body than the bikini body. They should have just shown her body