FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour

On Dec 10, 9:27 pm, " wrote:
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.

Interesting.
Tho that patent has the conveyor belt going the opposite way to the
internet myth that's being tested (ie. same direction as aircraft
taking off).
http://www.google.com/patents?id=c9x...patent:1824346

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.

Boy - do I disagree with you! I say they _are_ doing science. "Full
Stop." ;-) Here's one checklist for some of the essentials that define
scientific methods of experiments (all IMHO of course):

0) State the nature of the question to be resolved.
Check.
0.5) Write proposal/grant request and do resource budgeting.
Partial Check. ;-)
1) (Mostly optional) Design and build preliminary small scale
experiments where possible.
Check.
2) Make predictions on expected results of small scale experiments.
Check.
3) Run preliminary experiments, record observations, and compare with
expectations.
Check.
4) Run experimental controls (i.e. factor being tested is absent or
otherwise not applied) if at all possible and/or relevant.
Check.
5) Run steps 1 through 4, but using larger or "full" scale.
Check.
6) Compare observations with the original question and attempt to draw
conclusions.
Check.
7) Publish the way the experiment was preformed and the reasoning used
in drawing the conclusions. This should give others enough
information to either replicate the results, critical review the
experimental methods used and the reasoning applied in the
conclusions.
Check (done via their show and their fan site feedback forums).

Last I looked, real science isn't defined by how "clean" the experiments
are but by the methodology employed. On that basis I'd say they show
_real_ science as it really is because they show how difficult or
ambiguous it can be at times, not how wonderfully elegant it is (because
often it isn't). As far as credentials go - if the methodology is
basically correct then I think the main value added by credentials is
that it reduces the probability any given experiment will be
"sophomoric" or poorly designed. It also reduces the need to do
experiments in the first place, because as the old saying goes:

"A couple of months in the laboratory saves spending a couple hours in
the library."

But of course their show isn't about saving time in the library. ;-)

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

Well, I don't think they have to put together grant proposals, so yeah,
lots of fun if someone else is bankrolling your efforts! On the other
hand they do have restrictions on time and budget. Just like real
scientists do! :-)

On Dec 10, 9:47 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
"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.

Dude, it's mythbusters. These guys are freaking brilliant and they
will cover this thing from all angles. I can assure you.

"Jim Logajan" wrote

Boy - do I disagree with you! I say they _are_ doing science. "Full
Stop." ;-) Here's one checklist for some of the essentials that define
scientific methods of experiments (all IMHO of course):

2) Make predictions on expected results of small scale experiments.
Check.
3) Run preliminary experiments, record observations, and compare with
expectations.
Check.
5) Run steps 1 through 4, but using larger or "full" scale.
Check.
6) Compare observations with the original question and attempt to draw
conclusions.
Check.

If they could not get it to work the way the myth proposed, or they had not
blown anything up, get totally wild, and go the extreme, and blow the hell
out of something!

I especially liked the time they were trying to see about how to clean out
transit concrete mixers (big truck rotating drum type) with a little
dynamite, and it would not work, so they packed the whole drum with ampho
(the kind of stuff used to blow off rock faces in the rock quarry) and lit
it off!

They were able to identify the rear axle and the engine block, after the
dust settled. Not much else, though! g

I laughed until my cheeks hurt, after that one!

Yes, they do get things very wrong sometimes, but I concur. It is part
science, part entertainment, and good clean fun. Shake well, and---- who
knows what will come out! :-)
--
Jim in NC
Jim in NC

Dude, it's mythbusters. These guys are freaking brilliant and they
will cover this thing from all angles. I can assure you.

I hope you're kidding!

I like Mythbusters a lot, but they ALWAYS miss something important!

It irritates me most (being an electronics engineer) when they have
something
involving electronics, and they don't involve their EE (Grant Imahara) who
certainly
could have kept them on track.

johnsonbomb wrote:


Dude, it's mythbusters. These guys are freaking brilliant and they
will cover this thing from all angles. I can assure you.


yeah, like when they shot frozen chickens thru a Cherokee windshield and
applied the results to airliners. Brilliant.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


johnsonbomb wrote:


Dude, it's mythbusters. These guys are freaking brilliant and they
will cover this thing from all angles. I can assure you.


yeah, like when they shot frozen chickens thru a Cherokee windshield and
applied the results to airliners. Brilliant.

But they did do a mostly reasonable job with piercing the skin of a
pressurized fuselage with a 9mm. The shaped charge part was hokey.

In article mW_7j.24898$0O1.4507@trnddc05, "Casey Wilson"
wrote:

yeah, like when they shot frozen chickens thru a Cherokee windshield and
applied the results to airliners. Brilliant.

But they did do a mostly reasonable job with piercing the skin of a
pressurized fuselage with a 9mm. The shaped charge part was hokey.

Give them credit for noticing that the cherokee windshield wasn't rated
for birdstrikes, albeit after destroying a few windshields.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bob Noel wrote:
In article mW_7j.24898$0O1.4507@trnddc05, "Casey Wilson"
wrote:

yeah, like when they shot frozen chickens thru a Cherokee windshield and
applied the results to airliners. Brilliant.
But they did do a mostly reasonable job with piercing the skin of a
pressurized fuselage with a 9mm. The shaped charge part was hokey.

Give them credit for noticing that the cherokee windshield wasn't rated
for birdstrikes, albeit after destroying a few windshields.

Actually they did revisited this on later show and finally proved that a
frozen chicken had more penetrating power. As if it wasn't obvious...

The ice bullet could have been made to work but they never tried this
one again.

Tony

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 have no doubt that our buddy from France firmly believes he can land
a 747 if necessary. In fact he's done it hundreds of times.

-Robert