Talk:MythBusters (season 1)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject MythBusters, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Mythbusters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[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.
Note: I added a note that states that "True" was used instead of "confirmed" on the first season (at least the episodes I've seen - for instance, I know the microwave ep used "true"). For the sake of consistency, let's refer to confirmed myths as confirmed, to match the other four seasons - but keep the note that says that "true" was used in season 1. If someone can verify when they switched from "true" to "confirmed", that'd be helpful. TenPoundHammer 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split the table into separate episodes?

I think that the big table is quite difficult to read. I'd rather split the single table into separate tables—one for each episode—with the episode title/date/etc as a section header. That way, the tables would have only 3 columns. Also, we might reconsider using the wikitable class on the tables. --Fred Bradstadt 13:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Go right ahead. I'm going to start dealing with redirects.--Drat (Talk) 13:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll work on the conversion tomorrow.--Drat (Talk) 14:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistent tenses

It should either all be in present tense, or past tense, not both.

Maeglin 14:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question regarding Episode 12 - Breakstep bridge

  • Before they started testing the myth, they show some old bridge (black and white movie) from something like the 50s, that people attempted to destroy it by putting heavy loads on it - didn't work, air strike - missed, artillery - didn't do the job and finnaly they used explosives. So my question is - what's the name of that bridge and where it was located? if you have more info/pics about it'll be great.--212.25.75.36 22:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
"Galloping Gertie". TenPoundHammer 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Not the bridge in question. He was talking about the concrete or masonry bridge that took a great deal of effort to demolish, NOT the old Tacoma Narrows suspension bridge, which collapsed due to wind. I believe they showed the film sometime during the course of the episode, not necessarily at the beginning. --MarsJenkar (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jet wash

What were the MythBusters trying to prove in this episode? Was it that jet wash could be enough to overturn a car? Or was it that the output of a jet engine was enough to overturn a car? Top Gear were able to verify the latter, but not the former.

One difference between Mythbusters and Top Gear was that Mythbusters used a 737, while Top Gear used a 747.

They also admitted this myth was confirmed and showed the video from Brazil where a taxi cab was blown over. Their only limit as to why it could not be properly reproduced was due to legalities and Insurances reasons. --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 06:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is the status of this myth marked as "Partly-Plausible"? As the article states itself, the myth was confirmed when Tori, Kari and Grant were able to acquire a real 747 and proved that the thrust from the engines of a 747 could completely blow away a taxi, a school bus and even a small plane. Was the status officially stated as Partly-Plausible on the show? Rajrajmarley (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The episode where Tori, Kari, and Grant confirm the myth was in Supersized Myths in season 6, NOT the season 1 episode. The article deals with the verdict in the season 1 episode, which was Plausible in that episode because they could not actually confirm the myth with hard evidence (i.e. in the test, the car did not flip). --MarsJenkar (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question regarding Episode 6 - Lightning Strikes Tongue Piercing

The myth statement says "Metal body piercings increase one's chances of being hit by lightning." The status of this is then listed as busted because "The lightning does seem to strike a pierced body more, but not the piercings directly. It would take a piercing the size of a doorknob to attract lightning." But if "the lightning does seem to strike a pierced body more" then the actual myth statement is in fact confirmed (the myth title, "Lightning Strikes Tongue Piercing", on the other hand would be busted). So what should it be?

[edit] Eelskin wallet

The text says "In addition, further tests were conducted to see how much magnetism would it take to 'wipe' a card, and was found to be far above what the average person may encounter."

Ummmm... Busted!!!!!!!!!! Put your card next to a handbag clasp and see what happens to it -- or let it sit on or under a fridge magnet... Don't take my word for it, try it. But be ready to apply for a new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.200.166.120 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(This is a late reply, I know.)
Good sir, Wikipedia isn't the place to bring this up. The MythBusters episode entries here on Wikipedia deal mostly with the results given in the show, and results to the contrary from anecdotal sources rarely have a place here. If you have an issue with the experiment itself, you're better off taking this to the MythBusters forums on Discovery.com; you'll probably find you're hardly the first one to question the results given.
Also, they did prove that a card could be made unreadable through magnetic exposure, through the electromagnet experiment shown on the show. What's more, in MythBusters Outtakes, they showed that one of Jamie's powerful neodymium magnets could completely wipe a card—a clip not in the original show because they could not get an accurate measure of its strength in gauss. --MarsJenkar (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)