FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour

On 2007-12-09 07:03:09 -0800, "Blueskies" said:




Maybe we should start the thread drift right here and now....

You know, people would fully understand that a plane on a treadmill
will not start flying if we had a good educational
system. Liberal use of aerodynamic principles leads to stall spin
accidents, and everyone knows the dreaded downwind
turn was by global warming...

I knew it was the liberals!
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

john smith wrote:
Dana M. Hague wrote:

If it were so cut and dried, why does it generate threads of several
hundred messages here? G


Because people don't understand basic physics (or aerodynamics).
Neither do the Mythbusters crew, either... or more likely, they just
don't care as long as the show gets ratings.


Actually, MYTHBUSTERS is the best educational show on television for
teaching people the scientific method for testing theories.

And, how can two guys, and crew, have soooooo much fun at their work????

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

On Dec 9, 9:03 am, "Blueskies" wrote:
"Maxwell" wrote in ...

"B A R R Y" wrote in messagenews:ghrnl3h2rm847jvivviio87sa7arlkjvo7@4ax .com...
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0400, " Vacant lot
wrote:

I don't understand the premise of the conveyor belt thing. If you are
talking about thrusting an aircraft forward, like a catapult, you already
know the answer, and if the belt is running so the the wheels of the
aircraft are spinning madly while it stays still then again you already know
the answer. What are they trying to prove?

If it were so cut and dried, why does it generate threads of several
hundred messages here? G

Only because there are one or two nit pickers on here.... G

Maybe we should start the thread drift right here and now....

You know, people would fully understand that a plane on a treadmill will not start flying if we had a good educational
system. Liberal use of aerodynamic principles leads to stall spin accidents, and everyone knows the dreaded downwind
turn was by global warming...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dude, you can't be serious with that educational system crap. Yes, the
American public education system could use some help, but I'm a
college senior and I can't tell you **** about aerodynamics

On Dec 9, 1:54 am, James Sleeman wrote:

safely land an airplane and if a plane can take off from a conveyor belt

Oh lordy, here we go again, I sense an enormous thread coming.

It started in 1931. Look at patent number 1824346.

On Dec 8, 10:20 pm, buttman wrote:
On Dec 8, 9:32 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:

"Jamie and Adam take wing to test if a person with no flight training can
safely land an airplane and if a plane can take off from a conveyor belt
speeding in the opposite direction. Tory, Grant, and Kari jump on some
Hollywood-inspired skydiving myths."

Quoted from the Discovery channel schedule:http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-schedule...=1.13056.24704....

(My local paper's weekly TV schedule has just the brief summary "Landing a
747" so I presume the plane they attempt to land without training is a 747.
Will be interesting to see if they try the real thing and are not limited
to a simulator.)

I'm really anxious to see this episode, because apparently they filmed
the treadmill myth at my home airport.

What is the tredmill myth based on? Is the assertion that an aircraft
takes flight because of the speed of the tires?

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:
What is the tredmill myth based on? Is the assertion that an aircraft
takes flight because of the speed of the tires?

Cecil Adams dealt with the treadmill myth in the following column:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060203.html

And about a month later dealt with it again:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060303.html

I can only hope that the Myth Busters properly interpreted the original
problem statement and did not confuse it with one of the variants floating
around the net.

I also hope that they have a "Science Content" discussion that points out
the importance of clearly understanding the problem statement.

John, I would agree these guys are fun to watch, but their
experimental designs are often sophomoric. If they worked in my lab
they'd get retrained, or fired.

They are special effects guys, aren't they? They are good at that, and
great at entertainment, but the 'science' I'd seen on some of their
shows made my hair hurt.

But hell, if I could have as much fun as they seem to, I wouldn't care
that the science part was weak.

wrote:
John, I would agree these guys are fun to watch, but their
experimental designs are often sophomoric. If they worked in my lab
they'd get retrained, or fired.

They are special effects guys, aren't they? They are good at that, and
great at entertainment, but the 'science' I'd seen on some of their
shows made my hair hurt.

But hell, if I could have as much fun as they seem to, I wouldn't care
that the science part was weak.


Despite the stated format of the show, the boys are in the entertainment
business primarily. This means that what they do and how they do it is
severely restricted science wise due to multiple reasons, most of it
directly related to shortcuts required on a strict time line and the all
important "entertainment requirement".
The guys do the best they can within these restrictions and attempt to
produce a show for as wide a demographic audience as possible. They live
or die by the ratings book as do all such programs.
As someone interested in science, try sitting down at a table with an 85
year old grandmother, a six year old, and a high school dropout and
explain lift to them.........oh yes.....and do it so that they
completely understand every aspect of it on the science and engineering
level.....and do that in 30 minutes. :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

I do believe we've said the same thing using different words. It may
not scientific, but they are having fun. Who knows, maybe some few
kids, watching the show, will be inspired to become experimental
physists.





On Dec 11, 10:27 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
wrote:
John, I would agree these guys are fun to watch, but their
experimental designs are often sophomoric. If they worked in my lab
they'd get retrained, or fired.

They are special effects guys, aren't they? They are good at that, and
great at entertainment, but the 'science' I'd seen on some of their
shows made my hair hurt.

But hell, if I could have as much fun as they seem to, I wouldn't care
that the science part was weak.

Despite the stated format of the show, the boys are in the entertainment
business primarily. This means that what they do and how they do it is
severely restricted science wise due to multiple reasons, most of it
directly related to shortcuts required on a strict time line and the all
important "entertainment requirement".
The guys do the best they can within these restrictions and attempt to
produce a show for as wide a demographic audience as possible. They live
or die by the ratings book as do all such programs.
As someone interested in science, try sitting down at a table with an 85
year old grandmother, a six year old, and a high school dropout and
explain lift to them.........oh yes.....and do it so that they
completely understand every aspect of it on the science and engineering
level.....and do that in 30 minutes. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

wrote:
I do believe we've said the same thing using different words. It may
not scientific, but they are having fun. Who knows, maybe some few
kids, watching the show, will be inspired to become experimental
physists.





On Dec 11, 10:27 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
wrote:
John, I would agree these guys are fun to watch, but their
experimental designs are often sophomoric. If they worked in my lab
they'd get retrained, or fired.
They are special effects guys, aren't they? They are good at that, and
great at entertainment, but the 'science' I'd seen on some of their
shows made my hair hurt.
But hell, if I could have as much fun as they seem to, I wouldn't care
that the science part was weak.
Despite the stated format of the show, the boys are in the entertainment
business primarily. This means that what they do and how they do it is
severely restricted science wise due to multiple reasons, most of it
directly related to shortcuts required on a strict time line and the all
important "entertainment requirement".
The guys do the best they can within these restrictions and attempt to
produce a show for as wide a demographic audience as possible. They live
or die by the ratings book as do all such programs.
As someone interested in science, try sitting down at a table with an 85
year old grandmother, a six year old, and a high school dropout and
explain lift to them.........oh yes.....and do it so that they
completely understand every aspect of it on the science and engineering
level.....and do that in 30 minutes. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques


It's funny about the show. I'll catch it sometimes while surfing for old
movies late at night and find myself watching them trying not to blow
themselves up :-) Last night it was building an ancient Chinese throne
and fitting it with 47 rockets to see if the Emperor who actually tried
this way back when managed to get off the ground without killing himself.
I ended up going up to the bathroom and missing the ending. My best
Occam's Razor scientific guess on this one is that the ole' Emperor is
still out there somewhere thinking that one of these days he's "simply
GOT to pull himself together" :-)

--
Dudley Henriques