OK, so it's almost a week late, but I just realized this morning, after looking at my Tivo play list, that the new season of MythBusters started last Wednesday. I love this show, and I catch it whenever it's on, so I figured I'd give it a little coverage here once a week. Better starting late than never.In this episode, the Adam and Jamie do something they've done at least in one previous episode: go back to old, previously busted/confirmed myths and give them another go. Basically this means that a lot of fans of the show disagreed with the validity of methods used to test certain myths on the show, so A & J give them a more thorough going over a second time.
The first myth revisited is "Blown Away". This was the myth that, when a person is shot at point-blank range, they go flying through the air, just like in the movies. The first time around the myth was busted. This time, with a new Buster in place, they go ahead and try the gamut of weapons on the poor dummy. Oh man, the 50-cal is something to behold. I remember seeing it when they tested the underwater bullet myth in the past, and it's a monster. But, even the mighty 50-cal doesn't cause Buster to go flying through the air. Totally busted again.
The next revisited myth was "Running in the Rain". The first time, myth busted - running in the rain actually makes you get wetter than walking does. This time they used actual rain for their test (rather than the simulated rain the first time) and used a larger sample size. Conclusion: myth confirmed - you will get less wet if you run through the rain.
Third up, "Biscuit Bullet". They actually revisited this myth once before with aerosol cans and cola cans, but fans said they didn't let the cans sit long enough in the hot car. Adam confesses that the myth of a soda can exploding in a hot car is confirmed, but this time they go ahead and test which color car will heat up the least, preventing such a thing from happening. Conclusion: white car = 115-degrees, black car = 120-degrees. So, if you're concerned about heat in the car, get a white one.
The next revisit is "Plywood Builder". Fans say that the 'Busters didn't take any updraft into consideration, though they disagree right off the bat. This time they decide to strap Tory into the back of a pickup truck holding onto a huge plywood board, thus testing one hell of a lot of updraft. After several different configurations on the truck, Tory proves you simply can't hold onto the board at the speeds necessary to fly around on it. Myth busted, once again.
"Explosive Decompression" is next. This myth concerns whether a gunshot through a flying airplane would cause the plane to explode from decompression. The first time it was busted, though they didn't actually put a plane in flight to test it accurately. Unfortunately, they don't get to actually put a plane in flight (yeah, who would volunteer that test?), though they do test in a decompression chamber of sorts. They strap the unit onto the back of a pickup truck to try increasing the psi over the bullet hole in the plane window, but it's so small that we see the myth busted yet again.
Last time around, in "AC vs. Windows Down", the MythBusters concluded that using AC was more efficient than opening your windows to cool down. However, they quickly admit that they were wrong to make such a hasty confirmation. In fact, they find that over 50 mph, you're better off
Lastly, we have "Car Capers: Exploding Gas Tank". The myth was busted last time, that a bullet to a car gas tank would cause the car to explode. However, unlike the way A & J usually finish up busted myths, they didn't test which kind of bullets would cause the gas tank to explode. So, what should do the trick? Tracer rounds. At the appropriate distance from the tank, a tracer round finally did ignite the tank and likely blow it up. Myth confirmed.
Quote of the episode: "I think Adam's had more explosive farts than that."
The Prisoner -- An early look
Sesame Street's 40th: Five funniest characters
Sesame Street's 40th: Five biggest controversies
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-14-2005 @ 8:27AM
Richard Jabonee said...
I am watching the second program right now. They are running two vehicles around a track. The weight and configuration of everything in each vehicle has been checked to ensure both vehicles are identical, except one will run the a/c, and one will open the windows. The vehicles are running at 45 mph for as far as 5 gallons of gas will take them. They emptied each vehicle, and then refilled them with 5 gallons.
The vehicle that uses less gas under those conditions is........... the one with the Windows Open....about 15% more fuel efficient.
Reply
11-10-2005 @ 7:48PM
masterbateoffm said...
masteroffm, you are a retard.
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about and you are just trying to cover up for that fact by saying your brother has 3 degrees in, quote "auto maintence".
You would think someone who has owned "2 BMWs" would know how to spell maintenance or efficiency.
I was also perplexed as to how you could possibly get 3 degrees in "auto maintence". Where i work we have 3 people who hold doctorates at different universitys, all of them laughing at your suggestion that you can hold 3 degrees in "auto maintenance" (please note correct spelling).
One would think that maybe you over-embellished on your brothers so called degrees, and he actually has completed 3 months of an automotive apprenticeship and then dropped out.
As for you wonderful vacuum theory, i think that post number 14 gave that a big kick in the butt.
But anyway the whole point of this reply is that contrary to your belief, wind does indeed impact on fuel economy, although it would not become noticable until at least 55 miles per hour and increases exponentially thereafter. Infact air resistance is one of the greatest forces acting on earth and humans for hundreds of years have been trying to discover ways to minimise its effects (E.G cars designed in wind tunnels), Therefore saving energy which relates directly to fuel economy, which is what we are all talking about.
Lesson learned for you today is dont lie your way through life, if you dont know what your talking about just STFU.
Reply
11-28-2005 @ 2:27AM
Jaime said...
The Internet is totally plagued with clueless nobody's with more mouth than knowledge...
On top of that they are always the overly indignant finger pointing individuals... Defiant dumbass syndrome
It's a fucking sad reality... kinda like stupid squared
Reply
10-18-2005 @ 12:02AM
bgdc said...
While I enjoy mythbusters, they're flat out wrong about opening windows at over 50 mph.
At 50 mph per hour (who drives this slowly?) a car experiences some measure of wind resistance/drag. Drive at speeds over 55 mph with windows down and you'll decrease fuel economy by up to 20 percent or greater because the drag on your car is increased exponentially. By 75 mph (normal freeway cruising) you're destroying fuel economy with your windows down.
These jokers really need to test a modern car and drive the vehicle at freeway speeds. Drag coefficient with windows up at 70-80-90 is very important.
Reply
10-18-2005 @ 12:36AM
wes rand said...
Actually I think it was the reverse on the show: more efficient to have the windows open under 50mph. Over 50mph use the AC.
Reply
10-18-2005 @ 9:16AM
Derek said...
The AC/Windows Down should be easy to test...
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/72fc/
This handy little device tells you what your Fuel usage and Engine Load are. Set the cruise to 80 and roll down the windows. A few miles later, set the cruise to 80 and turn on the AC.
I guess that's why I don't have a TV show... Easy solutions to Easy problems...
Reply
10-18-2005 @ 9:22AM
Keith McDuffee said...
I didn't catch that Windows Down segment before, but did they test for the car's internal temperature as well? I mean, sure, you can roll the windows down at certain speeds to get cooled off and still save gas, but are you really getting cooled off over what the AC would do for you? I guess in this test it may be irrelevant.
Reply
10-21-2005 @ 10:12PM
z0rz said...
"In fact, they find that over 50 mph, you're better off with your windows open, but slower than that, use the AC. Myth busted."
That doesn't make sense. If you have your windows down it should cause more air resistance the faster you go. So it should be over 50mph use your AC and under 50mph have your windows down.
Is it just me? Or does that make more sense?
z0rz
Visit my blog: http://z0rz.com
Featuring the $150 PC
Reply
10-20-2005 @ 7:52PM
masteroffm said...
wind resistance has nothing to do with fuel comsumption wether the AC is on or off, what makes the difference is the power taken away from the engine to drive the compressor for the AC. In my truck if you are at a stop you can feel the engine lose power for a second when you turn on the AC. Also when I go to take off from a stop I have to give it more gas (my truck is a stick). Sometimes when I am at a stop simply turning on my AC can almost kill my engine. So explain to me how wind resistance plays a factow when I am taking of from a dead start?
Reply
10-26-2005 @ 11:31PM
BMWcrazy said...
Omg, masteroffm, they're talking about something else...They're not saying that the AC's efficiency has to do with speed, they're saying that the air resistence from the windows down slowing your car. And no one said anything about taking off from the dead start. Read some posts before you post or risk sounding like an idiot.
Reply
10-20-2005 @ 9:00PM
Shayne said...
Myth Busters busted the story of Archimedes Death Ray, but engineering students at MIT were able to recreate the effect on a model of a Roman ship with standard one foot square mirror panels.
http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/lectures/10_ArchimedesResult.html
Reply
10-21-2005 @ 6:09AM
okron1k said...
"wind resistance has nothing to do with fuel consumption"
hahahaahhaha... ok..
when the windows are down and you are driving (as in.. not stopped) the wind pushes into the window creating more friction (for lack of a better word).
think of it this way. i don't know if you watch nascar or any other racing... i don't but i am trying to find something you will understand. anyways... when two cars are racing down the straight away.. did you ever wonder why the guy behind is RIGHT behind the car in front. he's using less power to keep up with the guy in front because the guy in front is getting all the wind pressure.
you drive a truck you should know. if you don't have a cover over the box you should drive with your tailgate down, if its not illegal in your area, you will get better milage because the wind wont be pushing against the car as hard.
Reply
10-21-2005 @ 6:09AM
okron1k said...
"wind resistance has nothing to do with fuel consumption"
hahahaahhaha... ok..
when the windows are down and you are driving (as in.. not stopped) the wind pushes into the window creating more friction (for lack of a better word).
think of it this way. i don't know if you watch nascar or any other racing... i don't but i am trying to find something you will understand. anyways... when two cars are racing down the straight away.. did you ever wonder why the guy behind is RIGHT behind the car in front. he's using less power to keep up with the guy in front because the guy in front is getting all the wind pressure.
you drive a truck you should know. if you don't have a cover over the box you should drive with your tailgate down, if its not illegal in your area, you will get better milage because the wind wont be pushing against the car as hard.
Reply
10-20-2005 @ 10:32PM
masteroffm said...
BMW crazy, you are the idiot I was using my car as an example, and I was trying to point out that the difference in fuel efficeny is not related to wether you have the windows up or down. The whole reason for this myth was becuase the display on the dashboard would show that fuel efficeny went up when the AC was turned on. This gauge is powered by a vacuum line off the intake, if you actually do drive a BMW as I have had 2 you know that the gauge on the dash for fuel economy lies. From what my brother (an ASE certified mechanic with 3 college degrees in auto maintence, not trade schools but a community college with one of the best automotive programs in California) that when the intake pulls more air into the engine it creates more vacumm on the gauge, showing better fuel economy. So STFU unless you know what you are talking about
Reply
10-21-2005 @ 12:10AM
Chris Taylor said...
2 issues. first the plywood. its still in need of a revisit. there is a difference between holding your OWN mass against an updraft and the entire mass of the pickup truck against an updraft.
if your falling several things to consider. you dont need to hang onto that plywood long. only enough to fall the few stories (10 seconds TOPS !!) to survive.
Second its only YOUR mass under the plywood. your not strapped to a pickup truck. Once you have survived the initial JOLT of the wind pushing up on the plywood (etc..) then its ONLY your weight that you have to support
third part of the second issue is adrenaline. ask a mom to pick up a car ? not gonna happen. now put here in an accident with her child stuck under that car. you might be surprised what she or anyone can not accomplish beyond what they could ever accomplish in a controlled situation. ie when your necks on the line etc.. you have a bit more incentive and power than you can normally easily access.
I think the plywood chute is very feasible. it only has to slow you down enough to survive hitting the ground.
as for the AC. the assumption is you WANT to be cooled down. what they are saying (coincidence of the speeds they chose) is under 50 its more gasoline effecient to cool with the windows down. above 50 its more gas effecient to cool with the AC on and windows up. IE the windows open will cause a larger reduction in effeciency at 50+ than having the AC on will.
off course windows up and no ac will always be better than either if all you care about is gasoline effeciency.
Chris Taylor
http://www.zodiacreview.com/
Reply
10-21-2005 @ 12:50AM
CollegeToad said...
I think the A/C would put a much greater load on the engine (More Fuel for burning) then windows down, since drag is pretty much a small factor to consider especially at 50mph or subsonic flow
Reply
10-21-2005 @ 11:48PM
cut said...
masteroffm as far as vacume in the intake manifold when you turn on the ac and aply the extra load to the engine more fuel is then delivered and the idle stabilizer valve will add more air. this could allow the vacume to remain the same. if you increase vacume it decreases power so the engine will stall. that bog your car does is that happening before the system compensates. i have my compressor unpluged in my car and when i turn the ac setting on the engine ends up reving high to compensate for the load that should be there(my defroster engages the clutch even when its on heat so i unplugged it to keep the load down on the motor and save on gas :). I dont know if you are wrong but unless you have tested it i wouldn't go saying its the truth. I could probably test it with our vacum gauge at the shop. interesting theory though.
Reply
10-21-2005 @ 11:21AM
masteroffm said...
CollegeToad, thank your for being an intelligent person. okron1k is an idiot. How fast do they go when they are racing NASCAR, um lets see I know its over a 100 MPH, and yes if you had windows open under those conditions it would make a big differenece. but when you are going 55 MPH down the freeway can you tell a difference in engine responsiveness with the windows up or down I sure cant. While i may have been hasty in saying that it makes no difference, the difference would be impercievable, but not immeasurable. In any case I always drive with my windows down because I prefer it, but when my wife is in my truck we run the AC because she likes it better. And in my truck at least i know using the AC uses more fuel on the freeway than having the windows down. BTW I have a camper shell on my truck, so while technically more aerodynamic, it weigh more and the tiny 4 cylinder engine in my Ranger doesnt like it. With the campershell and a full tank of gas my Ranger rides like a Cadillac
Reply