Talk:MythBusters (2008 season)

High Speed Camera

Does anyone else think it is worth noting that the high-speed camera went from 1000fps to 6000fps for episode 95. It was able to show bullets in mid-flight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.37.60 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Vehicle Grappling Hook

For some reason this article is currently reading a status not used on the show (or any other MB show for that matter). ("Plausible in the Future"). On the show, the status was Busted. There seems to be an edit war about this looking at the history log. Jon 13:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

mythbustersresults.com also lists this as busted. GreekHouse 04:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Viewers Pick Special

The Viewers Pick Special is listed in both Season 6 and as a special episode. Surely it should just be one or the other, and my money's on "special"... R'win 23:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The upcoming Super Sized Special is also listed in both Season 6 and as a special episode for some strange reason. Jon 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Confederate Steam Gun

It was aired in the Netherlands a few days ago, so where does the airing date comes from?
Codegrinder 13:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The standard for TV show articles is the first airing date (in the local timezone) anywhere in the world. Jon 14:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

James Bond Propane Tank

Despite them bleeping Kari, from the "with thanks to" in the credits I'm guessing the Gatling gun came from Guardco Security who apparently do "detective guard & armoured car services". And since they also thank Merced County Sheriff's Department, and Guardco Security is apparently based in Merced, I'm guessing the secret location is somewhere in Merced County... R'win (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The minigun came from Dillon Areo (the manufacture), which is based in Scottsdale, Arizona. A guard company wouldn't have access to a minigun, nor would they have need for one. Same goes for any police department in the US.--Davidwiz (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Una pequeña duda

¿Alguno que hable en español me puede decir si tiene idea de cuando llegaran estos capitulos a la Argentina?

• Firma:Pablo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.114.32 (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The MacGyver Challenge

I'm having a hard time deciding how it should be. The Pass/Fail thing was just to see if Jamie and Adam could improvise like MacGyver could. But it doesn't say if the myth was possible. Like for the film developing, apparently you can develop the film using the orange juice and the ammonia, if Grant and Tori were right. Wouldn't that be a confirmed, even though it didn't make the show? I'm having a hard time trying to parce this. Toastypk (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

They've done "no real myth" segments in the past. Diet coke and mentos, the christmas Rube-Goldberge machine, they "ultimate mythbusters" thing; and of coruse, their shopping episode.

the point of the tests were to see if Adam and Jamie could think like MacGyver (i guess you can say that was the myth), and find soultions to the problem at hand with, well what ever was at hand.Metropod (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Shark Week 2008?

Is this really going to be a new episode? For the past few years, on shark week they've been repeating the Shark Week Special from early in the shows history. Jon (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you follow the link provided, jamie and adam talk about testing shark myths that we've never seen before so it is a new episode Redekopmark (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In the myth where Grant and Tory were taking turns playing dead in the water with sharks they talked about a previous myth called "Urine Trouble". What episode was that from?--99.224.154.14 (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That was during Mini-Myths seen across the entire Shark Week '05. They were also online for awhile, not sure about now. --BS01Swert (^Talk) 06:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Season 7

According to TV Guide, the shark special is split into 2 shows, and exploding steak is the first episode of season 7, so the last few episodes need to be moved to the season 7 article. I don't have time to do it myself. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the built in Dish guide, the 2008 Shark Special was a single two hour episode while the original shark special from 2006? was two one hour episode. I also find it more likely than not that 2008 Shark Special and all following episodes listing are season 7 but the discovery channel's web site needs checked before making that call. Jon (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

the discovery website no longer arranges episodes by season, now it just goes by year. Although I think that the shark week special should be part of season 7 Redekopmark (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Shark Bites Extravaganza clean-up

I have to bring this up because the section is not on par with the other section and they only state the results and not the myths being tested. That section needs clean-up ASAP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Season subdivision, reference

Why aren't there any source references to the season subdivisions? Where do you get the information on when each season begins? There seem to bee different information on different websites. And the official MythBusters site doesn't list seasons at all. Wouldn't it be better to just arrange the episodes under year and skip the season subdivisions if there are no secure sources?! / Dreamingtree (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You could have asked first, because S6 ans S7 pages are messed up now. Muscleduck (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

5 Episode 99 – "Viewer Special 2" 5.1 Ancient Arrows

Aren't arrowheads or some other weight at the front of the arrow needed for stability in flight; i.e., to ensure the center of gravity stays forward of the center of lift? (The feathers at the rear of arrows shifts the center of lift toward the rear.) If the center of lift is forward of the center of gravity, any slight angle between the axis of the arrow and its direction of flight (called the angle of attack) would cause that deviation to increase, because lift is proportional to angle of attack as well as velocity. A pointed stick without added weight in front possibly would not fly as well. Btm1 (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This sort of question is better suited to the discovery forums for the show. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not a discussion board on the show itself.--Drat (Talk) 09:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Discovery Forums \ Mythbusters \ Mythbusters Episode Discussion is the place to go. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 17:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Numbering of Episode SP12 – "Viewer Special Threequel" (2008 season)

Hi from Russian fans of the show.

Could you please explain why did you marked "Viewer Special Threequel" as a Special Episode SP12 and not as a regular Episode #114? It really doesn't make sense, cause first two "Viewer Choice" episodes are marked as a regular episodes (namely, Episode 84 "Viewer's Special" and Episode 99 "Viewer's Special 2"). Moreover, the fourth Viewer Special, aka "Wheel of Mythfortune", marked as a regular episode. So what is so special in this "Viewer Special Threequel"?

As far as I understand there is no reliable source on this matter. Even Discovery official website do not list all the episodes. Sometimes it miss a special episodes, sometimes it doesn't. Actually, it miss several regular episodes as well. E.g., "Operation Valkyrie" do not in the list, while special "Top 25 Moments" counted in.

So it look like one should use a common sense to separate special episodes and regular one. And common sense insist, that this "Viewer Special Threequel" should be treated as a regular episode. It is not a clip-cut of a previous scenes, it has no specific content or something, it is the very common episode of Mythbusters.

The reason why am I asking you is that Russian wiki treats this episode as a regular Episode 114. Consistently, "Demolition Derby" is Episode 115, etc. Right now we have discussion on this matter. So we will appreciate any links, hints and ideas you could provide us with.

CC: Talk:MythBusters, Talk:List of MythBusters episodes Einwill (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What is Bulletproof

Is it relevant to add that in the 10th season gunslingers episode, Jamie specifically called the fiber-reinforced gypsum cement he used 'FGR 95'. I don't think it was mentioned in the episode itself, but its interesting to know if you check here for details. So should it be added? 60.225.245.231 (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Jim

Episode 97 "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt"

It was incorrect to claim this myth was 'Busted' as the experimental method failed to control one important variable and parts of the Mythbusters' explanation are incompatible with the laws of motion (though they are commonly repeated elsewhere, where plausible explanations for both 'true' and 'untrue' are available and are controversial). Adding the following to the 'Notes' column would flag this up: "However the test did not include control for the speeds of plane and belt to be equal (in opposite directions) as required by the myth, as evidenced by the pilot's comment "Once we started to roll, I gunned it, you know, I got up at a fairly good clip". Therefore the test neither busted nor confirmed the myth. Using equal speeds could create a mechanical system which converts thrust into wheel rotation and the plane would not take off. The plane would have to use rollers (like logs on a river) instead of axled wheels for them to be independent of thrust in accordance with the Mythbusters' explanation."Jouef80 (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In this entry the Myth Statement is incomplete, although it was referred to correctly in the programme. The omission is material to the outcome. To correct it, insert the words in quotes as follows: A plane cannot take off while sitting on a conveyor belt moving "at the same speed" in the opposite direction.Jouef80 (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The statement by Jamie in the episode was "That's what we call busted on MythBusters", so that's what we have to use. It was also Jamie who said "Once we started to roll, I gunned it, you know, I got up at a fairly good clip", not the pilot. Anything else is original research, which is not permitted by policy. Note that the episode and the article point out that plane's wheels are independent of the propeller. There is no way to convert thrust into wheel rotation because there is no mechanical connection between the propeller and the wheels. Propeller driven aeroplanes only use wheels to stop the propeller smashing into the ground. They don't have anything to do with thrust at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The speaker is off-screen while the plane is in shot during the quote, and only the pilot 'got up' - neither the truck nor the Segway flew. The quote indicates a material fault in the experimental method by not matching speeds. The episode and the article get the physics and mechanics wrong by following a common misinterpretation of them.Jouef80 (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't know that they didn't match speeds... Anyway, there is nothing magic about "matching speeds". Your assertion that "Using equal speeds could create a mechanical system which converts thrust into wheel rotation" has no basis in reality. If the belt had any ability to counteract the propeller's thrust, then it would slow the airplane down (by however fast the belt was moving) even if it didn't stop it completely. Thus the pilot would have had to use more thrust than usual to achieve takeoff - perhaps beyond the engine's ability. But the pilot did not report anything unusual in the takeoff, except that he was surprised that it happened. Anybody who believes the belt could stop the airplane from taking off by "matching speeds" simply does not understand the problem or the physics. Jeh (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jouef80: - The quote occurs in the episode at 41:43, just after Adam fist-bumped Jamie. The voice is very clearly Jamie's, not the pilot's. The pilot doesn't speak until after he lands at 41:59. His voice is very different to Jamie's and was not the voice that spoke. "Got up" does not literally mean "got up into the air". It's a figure of speech. In this case, "got up at a fairly good clip" means "accelerated to a high speed". Jeh is correct that "anybody who believes the belt could stop the airplane from taking off by 'matching speeds' simply does not understand the problem or the physics". An aeroplane is not a car. The wheels are not mechanically linked to the engine. All that would happen on a conveyor belt is that the wheels would spin faster. I can't believe that the pilot didn't think he'd be able to take off. That said, this is not the place for discussion of the physics and mechanics involved. The situation is that the content that Jouef80 wants to add can't be as it constitutes original research, and that's where this discussion should end. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree this is not the place for original research. However Jeh, AussieLegend and the Mythbusters are mistaking 'free-wheeling' for 'free-rolling' and so mis-applying the physics. Could the article reflect that theirs is not a definitive explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jouef80 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what difference there is between "free-wheeling" and "free-rolling" myself, if any, but the answer to your question is no, unless it's supported by citations from reliable sources that directly address the episode. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The difference is the presence of an axle.Jouef80 (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

An axle isn't relevant to the myth and would have no bearing on the outcome. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I enjoyed that pun - "bearing" indeed. In engineering terms, each wheel forms a kinematic cam pair with the belt surface and a revolute joint with the aircraft (the axle). Assuming an orthogonal arrangement of wheels, where gravity acting on aircraft mass constrains rotation, and disregarding steering as not applicable to a takeoff roll, this leaves one degree of freedom namely surge (linear motion forwards and backwards). Incidentally, once in the air the craft gains five more degrees namely heave, sway, pitch, yaw and roll. Engine thrust imposes positive torque on the wheels and the belt motor negative torque on its drive rollers. Running the belt at negative aircraft velocity (matching its speed in reverse) constrains the entire aircraft's velocity relative to earth to zero. In lay terms, because the plane is attached to the axle it cannot overtake the wheel and must maintain the same relative position to the belt surface. Note that the original myth also specifies still air, so at ground level airspeed and ground speed are equal.Jouef80 (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No. Engine thrust imposes only forward force on the airplane. It does not apply torque to the wheels; that is flatly not how airplanes work. (How do you think skiplanes take off?) It is the force applied to the wheels via friction with the ground that causes the wheels to turn during the takeoff roll. (If the wheel-to-ground interface was frictionless the wheel would have no reason to turn, any more than it does after liftoff, or before landing for that matter.) If it's a conveyor belt rather than the stationary ground and the belt is moving backwards at the same speed as the airplane is moving forward, the only result will be that the wheels spin twice as fast as normal. And the force of rolling friction is relatively constant w.r.t. rotation rate, so don't look to the force of rolling friction to save your position.

You've no doubt been in airports with moving sidewalks. Suppose we have one that moves at your normal walking speed. You approach it from the wrong end, trailing a rollaboard behind you. Because the airport is deserted and you feel like trying an experiment, you choose to walk alongside the walkway, but you pull your rollaboard ON the walkway, your arm extending over the walkway's handrail. Do you honestly think you will somehow be prevented from making forward progress? No - the rollaboard wheels will simply double in rotation speed once they hit the walkway. Nor will you need any more walking effort than usual. Note: Your feet against the ground == the airplane's prop or turbine blades against the air, something that applies forward force to your body. Don't tell me "the air is too insubstantial", it's substantial enough to allow airplanes to move through it at very high speed. Jeh (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Accepted - checking the start of the episode they describe 'matching the speed of the plane' implying relative to earth which does allow their claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jouef80 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Jouef80, yes, that's a point that is often glossed over. The phrase "matching the speed of the plane" or "at the same speed" is ambiguous, leading to people who guess it means one thing to get different results from people who guess it means another thing. Randall Munroe points out the ambiguity and how that ambiguity gets amplified into arguments when people don't even realize there is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of "speed" that is different than what they guessed it meant (XKCD blog: airplane treadmill). --DavidCary (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MythBusters (2008 season). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217120801/http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/polls/viewers-choice/video/poll.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/polls/viewers-choice/video/poll.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:MythBusters (2003 season) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)