Talk:MythBusters (season 2)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Momentum vs. KE
2 Notes for editing the episode table
3 Biscuit Bazooka
4 Cement removal
5 Reversion of 62.234.87.22's edits
6 Appliances in the Bath
7 Season 1 part 2?
8 Episode numbers incorrect

[edit] Momentum vs. KE

Did the MythBuster's episode actually use Kinetic Energy (KE) when describing why a bullet couldn't knock someone around? I've corrected it to momentum. (The KE involved from a typical 9mm Luger handgun, 600 Joules, is enough to push a man a full meter into the air... but it's applied for tearing and shredding, not lifting. The momentum, meanwhile, isn't enough... and THAT is what would knock back the shooter as well.)

[edit] Notes for editing the episode table

This is as a reference for people who are editing sections only and not the entire page (they won't be able to see it). It's referenced to from the source. --hao2lian

NOTE FOR THIS TABLE:

Busted myths should be marked red
Confirmed myths should be marked green
Plausible myths should be marked orange
Any myths tested with inconclusive results or need to be declared in mixed form (Plausible/Busted) should be marked blue
Do not leave the note field empty. Add a simple hyphen ("-") to fill the space. Also, always try to fill in any note fields which are empty (the more info, the better).
Be sure to correctly nest myths which include several different trials (see the example on the cola myth)
If you'd like to suggest a different format for this list, please do so on the talk page.

[edit] Biscuit Bazooka

This is baloney - I've left cans of soda in my car on a hot day, only to come back with a soda-filled interior. It's the top the pops, and spews everywhere. Sadly, I have done this twice.

[edit] Cement removal

Whilst the truck filled to the brim with cement was destroyed with a massive abount of high explosive, a second truck with only the coating that would normally acrue, was tested with a much smaller charge which removed much of the internal coating, and loosened the rest enough for removal by hand.

Whilst the myth is busted for a truck filled to the brim with solid cement, for a truck with a normal coating the myth is confirmed.

[edit] Reversion of 62.234.87.22's edits

The reason I have reverted the recent edits by 62.234.87.22 is that part of it (the six-pack myth), is largely redundant, having already been covered in the section for that episode. Some of the edits also contain unencyclopedic parts, like the made-up myth results "Too much Confirmed" or "As good as Busted". I have asked this user a few times over the last couple weeks to stop making up myth results, including the specific examples I have listed. However, it seems they just added them straight back in. I have asked this user to participate in this discussion.--Drat (Talk) 14:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appliances in the Bath

The notes for this section start with the sentence "The current in most electrical appliances is well above the levels the human body can withstand.". But the value of the current inside an appliance is not the same as the value of the current through a human body nearby - conditioned on voltage, the two currents are independent, with or without water. Current is voltage divided by resistance. The actual voltage present at the human's skin depends on a range of factors. In fact, it would seem that the higher the current through the appliance, the lower the voltage at nearby objects - so in fact it should be safer to use an appliance with higher wattage, and most dangerous to use an appliance which is turned off. Not having seen the episode, I don't know what to change the sentence to. If they used the clearly fallacious assumption that electrical current between two electrodes is the same within any nearby material, and avoided doing a test with an animal or something, then I think they have made a very careless mistake. A5 00:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think somehow the MythBusters are above subjecting live animals to deadly tests.--Drat (Talk) 08:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. The article says "confirmed", I think there should be something in "Notes" which says how it was confirmed, which doesn't use erroneous/irrelevant reasoning as it does now. Or, it could point out that the MythBusters reasoning is erroneous. A5 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Says who? It may be so, but to put such info in the article would be original research. However, if a reliable source has criticised this particular thing, then by all means cite it.--Drat (Talk) 07:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirchoff's laws, formulated in 1845, are not original to Wikipedia. I'll update the article. 83.67.201.204 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read the example given on the No Original Research policy page. Unless Kirchoff specifically referred to the faulty reasoning of the MythBusters experiment (which, short of time travel, he obviously couldn't have), you can't use it.--Drat (Talk) 05:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Season 1 part 2?

Discovery's DVD sales seem to indicate that 11 episodes from what is considered 'season 2' are called (by them) "season 1 (part 2)". should this be commented on? I'm assuming it has to do with production season vs. airing? TheHYPO 02:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)