.........They are lightweights.


Anyone else get a kick out of them getting drunk? Are they running out of ideas or is it just funny to see them drunk?

Was it the episode where they test methods to beat breathalyzer tests? If so it's one of the older ones...

And they've been running out of ideas for a while, the show is basically an excuse to blow stuff up now. Not that I'm complaining, it's still an entertaining show.

I hate Mythbusters now, they don't even use actual myths anymore

HEY WELCOME TO MYTHBUSTERS!!!1 IN TEH MATRIX NEO CAN DODGE BULLETS WELL TODYA WE FIND OUT IF THAT CAN RLY HAPPEN USING BUSTER WHOOPS LOOKS LIKE BUSTERS GOT A BOO-BOO LOL

Bill Nye and Mr. Wizard pwn those punks.

stop complaining you dont even watch it anymore

Was the drunk blind driving one. That one is new to me. I don't know how old/new it is.

Yea, still entertaining. I agree, they totally have run out of ideas. I still have some issues with they way they have 'busted' some myths though. They take an example of something happening, something that is a one in a million chance, and try it twice and 'bust' it.
And I still have an issue with the plane taking off

yeah cause it SUCKS

Wrong, we get to see a very small fraction of the stuff they actually do when busting the myths.
They show you more on their website and on their special episodes, but even then you don't get it all.

Early October. Still an amusing ep, though.

The show still isn't conclusive scientific evidence of anything.

I did not know that, I'll check out the website some time.
And how did you mess up a quote?

This post makes my heart hurt.

By deleting some of the quoted text and accidentally taking away the ]

Sure, some 'myths' are silly, but there are a fair few that I thought would go the other way and were really interesting. Like levitating a car using fire hoses, I didn't think that would work, but it actually did.

I think moving into the realm of trying out viral video myths is a good idea, they get some really interesting ideas from there.

Fact: anyone who dislikes Mythbustes, especially based on their (correct) results for airplane-on-a-treadmill, is not a good person; probably also you smell and don't get invited to any parties.

lol took a while before someone took up the plane thing

Sawdust cannon with powdered creamer

I loved that episode.

The one where they tested quick cures for being drunk, like the SLAP. His face like, totally deformed from the hit lol

My favorite episode is still the series premiere, the one with the rocket car.

That's one of my least favorites. It's a pretty boring episode with an interesting 5 minute conclusion.

escpialy since when they revistited using a ramp (to do a replicate the results) one with better rockets resulted in a big boom due to a faulty igniter, that was cool.

It's not complicated. The engine takes the air in front of it and pushes it behind it, there by reducing the atmospheric pressure in front of the plane and increasing it behind it. This is what causes the forward momentum (completely independent of the wheels). This is true for every form of propulsion system EXCEPT in Automobiles (where the engine directly rotates the axle) and Rockets.

So, in saying that, here's the real question:

Can a plane with a giant fan behind it, matching the planes acceleration, still take off? Now THAT is a Mythbusters episode I'd like to see.

Well, yes it would still take off, because a giant fan would have to do more than match speed, the force it exerts on the plane would have to be equal to the thrust of the engines. A lot of the air from the fan won't hit the plane. But yes, if the fan was moving fast enough, it would stop it.

Er, wait, you have that backwards. The fan should be in front of the plane.

And what did you mean "EXCEPT in Automobiles (...) and Rockets"? A rocket works just like a jet engine in this case.

:LXKcjXZ:LCkjXZ:LKcjVHKJXZgxdkosdkl;ajfbgans;lkKL;JDF

Yessss it is inevitable now; this thread must turn into a plane-on-a-treadmill argument.

It really sucks when your in a boat rowing against a current thats moving faster than you are, so you go backwards. It also sucks when you go down a current thats moving faster than you are, removing the ability to steer.

If there was a current that went as fast as a seaplane moved forward, would it take off? >_>

Before it takes off a seaplane is nothing more than a big boat. If the take-off speed is (arbitrarily) 30 mph and you're going against 30+ mph current, that's twice typical force on the pontoons/hull, you may actually be sitting still (fixed-axis), or at least a lot slower than normal.

Unlike a treadmill, you can get a current fast enough where you won't be able to take off.

For clarification, I was referring to using a turbo prop plane like what was used in the Mythbusters experiment.

The thrust of the engine is going to be proportional to the size, shape, and speed of the propeller. So all you would need is a similar fan to the propeller, going at the same speed. Of course, they would also need to be parallel to each other (which wouldn't be the case when the plane is at rest because it is usually sitting at at least a 15 degree angle, perpendicular to the ground).

So yeah, a lot of "special case" variable would be involved. Maybe not so much a good mythsbuster experiment as just a simple thought experiment.



You could put the fan in front of the plane (if you want to risk it getting plowed into by the pane) OR you could just turn the fan around. So, yes, I think it would be more effective for the fan to be behind and blowing away from the plane.



The difference between rockets and jets is that jets pull in air, which is needed in the combustion process. Rockets, on the other hand, have two tanks. A fuel tank and an oxidizer.

Yes, Jet's receive the similar thrust property that rockets have, but Jets are also assisted by the fact that they take in air with the impeller/turbine. This decreases the air pressure directly in front of the engine, requiring less work to move forward into that now less dense space. Yes, I know it's not drastic, but it's the principle that I'm pointing out.