Mythbusters - mobile phone and car use

[Euan]

Mythbusters tonight is testing the `myth' that talking on the mobile
'phone while driving is as bad as drink driving.

24 Oct 2005 SBS 19:30
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

[dave]

Euan wrote:
> Mythbusters tonight is testing the `myth' that talking on the mobile
> 'phone while driving is as bad as drink driving.
>
> 24 Oct 2005 SBS 19:30



I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science. Wonder how they are
going to find an average driver tho.

[Orlando]

Yeah but you still see idiots break this law, mainly beema drivers, who
think their **** don't stink.
If I had a dollar for every idiot I see breaking this law, I would be very
rich, I could give up work.
"dave" > wrote in message
. ..
> Euan wrote:
>> Mythbusters tonight is testing the `myth' that talking on the mobile
>> 'phone while driving is as bad as drink driving.
>>
>> 24 Oct 2005 SBS 19:30
>
>
>
> I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science. Wonder how they are
> going to find an average driver tho.

[dave]

Orlando wrote:
> Yeah but you still see idiots break this law, mainly beema drivers, who
> think their **** don't stink.
> If I had a dollar for every idiot I see breaking this law, I would be very
> rich, I could give up work.
> "dave" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Euan wrote:
>>
>>>Mythbusters tonight is testing the `myth' that talking on the mobile
>>>'phone while driving is as bad as drink driving.
>>>
>>>24 Oct 2005 SBS 19:30
>>
>>
>>
>>I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science. Wonder how they are
>>going to find an average driver tho.
>
>
>

I think I mentioned on this forum. I was stopped at the auburn and
Burwood lights in Hawthorn. A woman in a gold 350 SLC mercedes turned
right across the nose of a roady going straight thru the intersection ..
He swerved and yelled.. She stopped over the ped crossing on the road
she was turning into.. and he rode pointedly around the front.. telling
her to get of the phone. SHe had a phone in one hand and the other hand
on the wheel.. STILL and hadnt stopped talking.

Yeah in some cases it should be a death penalty offence.

Dave

[cogcontrol]

Euan Wrote:
> Mythbusters tonight is testing the `myth' that talking on the mobile
> 'phone while driving is as bad as drink driving.
>
> 24 Oct 2005 SBS 19:30
> --
> Cheers | ~~ __@
> Euan | ~~ _-\<,
> Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
Not sure why they are bothering as there have been a number of studies
in different countries that have indicated that both using a hand held
and hands free was dangerously distracting.

Anecdotal evidence I know but dinner conversation came around to this
subject the other and a number of people admitted to missing a turn off
or similar occurence while using a hands free.

God help us soft targets.

CC


--
cogcontrol

[aeek]

cogcontrol Wrote:
> Not sure why they are bothering as there have been a number of studies
> in different countries that have indicated that both using a hand held
> and hands free was dangerously distracting.
>

as a public service? The scientific studies have had no effect, but
maybe Mythbusters can make a difference. Will the commercial 'science'
show pickup this segment?


--
aeek

[Parbs]

"dave" wrote in message ...
>>
> I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science.

A good TV representation of science - maybe, good science - no.

Parbs

[dave]

Parbs wrote:
> "dave" wrote in message ...
>
>>I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science.
>
>
> A good TV representation of science - maybe, good science - no.
>
> Parbs
>
>

A experiment that is well designed to test a hypothesis and does so.
Hmmmmm thats my definition of good science whether or not cameras are
involved. What prey tell is yours?

[TimC]

On 2005-10-24, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Parbs wrote:
>> "dave" wrote in message ...
>>
>>>I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science.
>>
>>
>> A good TV representation of science - maybe, good science - no.
>
> A experiment that is well designed to test a hypothesis and does so.
> Hmmmmm thats my definition of good science whether or not cameras are
> involved. What prey tell is yours?

Not having to perform an experiment over 5 separate episodes before
they finally got the result that basic physics implies they ought to
have gotten first time if they did their calculations half decently?


Or weakening a bridge so substantially, that the result they tried to
show of an oscillation in a bridge was so unconvincing that it was not
possible to say it was oscillations that killed it.

Or tonight's -- should crash test dummies be reused? Are their joints
the same strength each time they put it back together again?

A lot of their show seems to be focussed on blowing things up. Very
pretty, but not very scientific.

--
TimC
You cannot kill Tim without fracturing eternity. -- sjc on AFDA

[SuzieB]

TimC Wrote:
>
> Or tonight's -- should crash test dummies be reused? Are their joints
> the same strength each time they put it back together again?
>
> A lot of their show seems to be focussed on blowing things up. Very
> pretty, but not very scientific.
>
> --
> TimC
> You cannot kill Tim without fracturing eternity. -- sjc on AFDA
Buster's leg did seem to keep coming off in the same spot didn't it!

What's wrong with blownin' stuff up!!!! :D


--
SuzieB

[dave]

TimC wrote:
> On 2005-10-24, dave (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>Parbs wrote:
>>
>>>"dave" wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science.
>>>
>>>
>>>A good TV representation of science - maybe, good science - no.
>>
>>A experiment that is well designed to test a hypothesis and does so.
>>Hmmmmm thats my definition of good science whether or not cameras are
>>involved. What prey tell is yours?
>
>
> Not having to perform an experiment over 5 separate episodes before
> they finally got the result that basic physics implies they ought to
> have gotten first time if they did their calculations half decently?

Na... experiments evolve, thats fair enough. And unlike many a ´real´
scientist they seem to be able to tell that it needs work
>
>
> Or weakening a bridge so substantially, that the result they tried to
> show of an oscillation in a bridge was so unconvincing that it was not
> possible to say it was oscillations that killed it.

But were they not trying to disprove the oscillation hypothesis? And so
trying to say if it ever happened it was going to happen with this
bridge.. seems fair.
>
> Or tonight's -- should crash test dummies be reused? Are their joints
> the same strength each time they put it back together again?

Well they got the bones into a possible range for human bones. That
seemed reasonable. bones vary in strength at least as much as bianchi
frames. And why not reuse crash test dummmys? They figured a cheap
way to measure brain injury and deacelleration G´s and the method
stands up. In a lovely russian solution to building a test track they
just turned the whole thing through 90 degrees and let gravity do the
job for them Where is the issue? If you want to argue with the
methodology.. trot out your arguament.

>
> A lot of their show seems to be focussed on blowing things up. Very
> pretty, but not very scientific.


Ohhhh but. Tim you are allowed to have fun :)
>

[Bleve]

dave wrote:
> Parbs wrote:
> > "dave" wrote in message ...
> >
> >>I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science.
> >
> >
> > A good TV representation of science - maybe, good science - no.
> >
> > Parbs
> >
> >
>
> A experiment that is well designed to test a hypothesis and does so.
> Hmmmmm thats my definition of good science whether or not cameras are
> involved. What prey tell is yours?

It's not good science, it's good showbusiness. Their experiments
are neither thorough or rigourous. Enjoy the show, for that's
what it is. Don't mix it up with science, that's like calling
ACA or TT journalism.

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2005-10-24, dave > wrote:
> TimC wrote:
>> Or weakening a bridge so substantially, that the result they tried to
>> show of an oscillation in a bridge was so unconvincing that it was not
>> possible to say it was oscillations that killed it.
>
> But were they not trying to disprove the oscillation hypothesis? And so
> trying to say if it ever happened it was going to happen with this
> bridge.. seems fair.

Disprove it? It's a bit hard to disprove the Tacoma Narrows Bridge ...

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

[Graeme Dods]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:46:28 +1000, dave wrote:

> A experiment that is well designed to test a hypothesis and does so.
> Hmmmmm thats my definition of good science whether or not cameras are
> involved. What prey tell is yours?

Well, for a start, something which doesn't use ridiculously small sample
sizes (it's happened/not happened once or twice when we tried it, so we've
proved/disproved the myth). Actually testing the correct items (e.g.
testing bird strikes using aircraft windows that weren't rated to protect
from bird strikes). Or just generally getting it right the first time (they
seem to go back to repeat previous experiments using "corrected" procedures
fairly regularly).

That said, it's still a great programme (one of my favourites), but it is
only meant to be entertaining. If you want good science, then I can only
think of one or two things I've seen on Australian TV in the last couple of
years that match that description even vaguely. I'd gladly be corrected on
that though as I don't spend much time glued to the TV.

Graeme

[dave]

Bleve wrote:
> dave wrote:
>
>>Parbs wrote:
>>
>>>"dave" wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science.
>>>
>>>
>>>A good TV representation of science - maybe, good science - no.
>>>
>>>Parbs
>>>
>>>
>>
>>A experiment that is well designed to test a hypothesis and does so.
>>Hmmmmm thats my definition of good science whether or not cameras are
>>involved. What prey tell is yours?
>
>
> It's not good science, it's good showbusiness. Their experiments
> are neither thorough or rigourous. Enjoy the show, for that's
> what it is. Don't mix it up with science, that's like calling
> ACA or TT journalism.
>

Ummm if it tests something in a repeatable way and supports or disproves
a hypothesis its science.

To think of science as anything more is ivory tower building

[dave]

Stuart Lamble wrote:
> On 2005-10-24, dave > wrote:
>
>>TimC wrote:
>>
>>>Or weakening a bridge so substantially, that the result they tried to
>>>show of an oscillation in a bridge was so unconvincing that it was not
>>>possible to say it was oscillations that killed it.
>>
>>But were they not trying to disprove the oscillation hypothesis? And so
>>trying to say if it ever happened it was going to happen with this
>>bridge.. seems fair.
>
>
> Disprove it? It's a bit hard to disprove the Tacoma Narrows Bridge ...
>

Thats not actually an episode I saw.. perfectly willing to say that
eposide was a dud.. since I didnt see it. But the Jaws one was genius.
And yeah we could have made a guess as to most of the results but it
was pretty convincing none the less.

And "DO scuba bottles go bang when shot? Lets shoot one and see" is
not only a perfectly valid experiment but the result was not at all what
I expected. Obvious in hindsight but isnt everything?

[dave]

Graeme Dods wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:46:28 +1000, dave wrote:
>
>
>>A experiment that is well designed to test a hypothesis and does so.
>>Hmmmmm thats my definition of good science whether or not cameras are
>>involved. What prey tell is yours?
>
>
> Well, for a start, something which doesn't use ridiculously small sample
> sizes (it's happened/not happened once or twice when we tried it, so we've
> proved/disproved the myth)

But doesnt it. If you can disprove a myth once in a very rare case
its disproved

.. Actually testing the correct items (e.g.
> testing bird strikes using aircraft windows that weren't rated to protect
> from bird strikes).

Hmmmm what actually is rated for bird strikes? Didnt see it anyway

Or just generally getting it right the first time (they
> seem to go back to repeat previous experiments using "corrected" procedures
> fairly regularly).

Sheesh. Science screws it up all the time. And even Henry Ford didnt
get everything tight the first time. However I can think of lots of
instances where real scienists wouldnt accept that the experiment could
be improved
>
> That said, it's still a great programme (one of my favourites), but it is
> only meant to be entertaining. If you want good science, then I can only
> think of one or two things I've seen on Australian TV in the last couple of
> years that match that description even vaguely. I'd gladly be corrected on
> that though as I don't spend much time glued to the TV.
>
> Graeme

Well we shall have to disagree.

[Graeme Dods]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:51:28 +1000, dave wrote:

> . Actually testing the correct items (e.g.
>> testing bird strikes using aircraft windows that weren't rated to protect
>> from bird strikes).
>
> Hmmmm what actually is rated for bird strikes? Didnt see it anyway

In this case they used the windscreen from a light aircraft (Cessna
something or other I think) which wasn't bird strike rated and fired
frozen/thawed chickens at it from a compressed air gun. Other aircraft (I
assume most larger passenger aircraft) and some high speed trains do have
bird strike rated windscreens.

>
> Or just generally getting it right the first time (they
>> seem to go back to repeat previous experiments using "corrected" procedures
>> fairly regularly).
>
> Sheesh. Science screws it up all the time.

It sounds like you're agreeing with me there, i.e. "screwed up" = "not good
science"


>>
>> That said, it's still a great programme (one of my favourites), but it is
>> only meant to be entertaining. If you want good science, then I can only
>> think of one or two things I've seen on Australian TV in the last couple of
>> years that match that description even vaguely. I'd gladly be corrected on
>> that though as I don't spend much time glued to the TV.
>
> Well we shall have to disagree.

On which bit, Mythbusters is entertaining, or their being little "good
science" on TV? The first is clearly just a personal preference and the
second, as I've said, I'd gladly be corrected on as I get little chance to
watch TV so may miss out on many good programmes.

[Resound]

"dave" > wrote in message
...
> Stuart Lamble wrote:
>> On 2005-10-24, dave > wrote:
>>
>>>TimC wrote:
>>>
>>>>Or weakening a bridge so substantially, that the result they tried to
>>>>show of an oscillation in a bridge was so unconvincing that it was not
>>>>possible to say it was oscillations that killed it.
>>>
>>>But were they not trying to disprove the oscillation hypothesis? And so
>>>trying to say if it ever happened it was going to happen with this
>>>bridge.. seems fair.
>>
>>
>> Disprove it? It's a bit hard to disprove the Tacoma Narrows Bridge ...
>>
>
> Thats not actually an episode I saw.. perfectly willing to say that
> eposide was a dud.. since I didnt see it. But the Jaws one was genius.
> And yeah we could have made a guess as to most of the results but it was
> pretty convincing none the less.
>
> And "DO scuba bottles go bang when shot? Lets shoot one and see" is not
> only a perfectly valid experiment but the result was not at all what I
> expected. Obvious in hindsight but isnt everything?

So what DO scuba bottles do when shot? I would have expected a loud, short
lived hissing noise. Possibly a bit of a bang if it split.

[Graeme Dods]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:38:20 +1000, dave wrote:

> And "DO scuba bottles go bang when shot? Lets shoot one and see" is
> not only a perfectly valid experiment but the result was not at all what
> I expected. Obvious in hindsight but isnt everything?

I didn't see that one, but I wouldn't have thought they did. Maybe go
pffffftt with big jet(s) of condensation, but not bang. What was the
result?

As one of the presenters (the one without the dodgy 'tache) says on his web
site "It's Jackass meets Mr. Science"

Graeme

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2005-10-25, Graeme Dods > wrote:
> I didn't see that one, but I wouldn't have thought they did. Maybe go
> pffffftt with big jet(s) of condensation, but not bang. What was the
> result?

Well, I don't know about shooting a scuba tank, but I've been told that
if such a tank should fall over and break its valve, it'll take off at a
rate of knots, going through even a brick wall.

Given that the air inside one is typically around two hundred times
atmospheric pressure, I can believe it.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

[dave]

Resound wrote:
> "dave" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Stuart Lamble wrote:
>>
>>>On 2005-10-24, dave > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>TimC wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Or weakening a bridge so substantially, that the result they tried to
>>>>>show of an oscillation in a bridge was so unconvincing that it was not
>>>>>possible to say it was oscillations that killed it.
>>>>
>>>>But were they not trying to disprove the oscillation hypothesis? And so
>>>>trying to say if it ever happened it was going to happen with this
>>>>bridge.. seems fair.
>>>
>>>
>>>Disprove it? It's a bit hard to disprove the Tacoma Narrows Bridge ...
>>>
>>
>>Thats not actually an episode I saw.. perfectly willing to say that
>>eposide was a dud.. since I didnt see it. But the Jaws one was genius.
>>And yeah we could have made a guess as to most of the results but it was
>>pretty convincing none the less.
>>
>>And "DO scuba bottles go bang when shot? Lets shoot one and see" is not
>>only a perfectly valid experiment but the result was not at all what I
>>expected. Obvious in hindsight but isnt everything?
>
>
> So what DO scuba bottles do when shot? I would have expected a loud, short
> lived hissing noise. Possibly a bit of a bang if it split.
>
>
well what happens is that the thing whips around at huge velocities. If
it had been in the sharks mouth it would have taken its head off

Impact from the rifle.. a hole thru both ends and a loud and long
hissing noise. Its an air powered asymetric thrust rocket.

[dave]

Stuart Lamble wrote:
> On 2005-10-25, Graeme Dods > wrote:
>
>>I didn't see that one, but I wouldn't have thought they did. Maybe go
>>pffffftt with big jet(s) of condensation, but not bang. What was the
>>result?
>
>
> Well, I don't know about shooting a scuba tank, but I've been told that
> if such a tank should fall over and break its valve, it'll take off at a
> rate of knots, going through even a brick wall.
>
> Given that the air inside one is typically around two hundred times
> atmospheric pressure, I can believe it.
>

Yep exactly. And as I said obvious in retrospect

[Bleve]

dave wrote:

> Thats not actually an episode I saw.. perfectly willing to say that
> eposide was a dud.. since I didnt see it. But the Jaws one was genius.
> And yeah we could have made a guess as to most of the results but it
> was pretty convincing none the less.
>
> And "DO scuba bottles go bang when shot? Lets shoot one and see" is
> not only a perfectly valid experiment but the result was not at all what
> I expected. Obvious in hindsight but isnt everything?

Ok, so why is this not good science?

Firstly, there are quite a few different types of SCUBA
tank - they can be made of various aluminium alloys, steel, and there
are some made of composites (but these are rare). Over the
past 40 years or so, SCUBA tank construction has changed somewhat.

Secondly, there are a number of different types of bullet. They
will behave in different ways when striking metal. Some will bounce,
some will penetrate intact, some will fragment etc.

Thirdly, SCUBA tanks can have different air pressures in them - the
normal inflation pressure for a 100cf steel tank is 220 bar (~220
atmospheres). There are also low pressure tanks (140bar or so) and
some that are rated to 300 bar or more. These are rare, but not unheard
of.

Fourth, metal fatigue and corrosion can alter the behaviour of a tank
under pressure (yes, they *can* explode). Tank valves are fitted with
burst disks to prevent this occuring, but sometimes the burst disks
can be blocked, sometimes older valves have no disks and so on.

Fifth, the gas mixes within SCUBA tanks are not necessarily just
79/20/1
(ie: plain air). They can have higher concentrations of Oxygen
(commonly
known as "NITROX or EAN"), helium (trimix, heliox etc) and so on.
Sometimes, hydrogen has been used as a mixing gas also.

There are many other variables also.

So, what did our cheerful entertainers achieve with this "experiment"?
They shot an unknown tank, with an unknown pressure and in an unknown
state of corrosion and fatigue, with an unknown projectile, at an
unknown
velocity, and saw a bullet penetrate the tank. Does this prove
anything?
No. Is it entertaining? Yes. If they'd done it properly, they'd have
made rather boring TV. They're not doing science, they're doing
entertainment.

[Resound]

"dave" > wrote in message
...
> Resound wrote:
>> "dave" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Stuart Lamble wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2005-10-24, dave > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>TimC wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Or weakening a bridge so substantially, that the result they tried to
>>>>>>show of an oscillation in a bridge was so unconvincing that it was not
>>>>>>possible to say it was oscillations that killed it.
>>>>>
>>>>>But were they not trying to disprove the oscillation hypothesis? And
>>>>>so trying to say if it ever happened it was going to happen with this
>>>>>bridge.. seems fair.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Disprove it? It's a bit hard to disprove the Tacoma Narrows Bridge ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Thats not actually an episode I saw.. perfectly willing to say that
>>>eposide was a dud.. since I didnt see it. But the Jaws one was genius.
>>>And yeah we could have made a guess as to most of the results but it was
>>>pretty convincing none the less.
>>>
>>>And "DO scuba bottles go bang when shot? Lets shoot one and see" is
>>>not only a perfectly valid experiment but the result was not at all what
>>>I expected. Obvious in hindsight but isnt everything?
>>
>>
>> So what DO scuba bottles do when shot? I would have expected a loud,
>> short lived hissing noise. Possibly a bit of a bang if it split.
> well what happens is that the thing whips around at huge velocities. If
> it had been in the sharks mouth it would have taken its head off
>
> Impact from the rifle.. a hole thru both ends and a loud and long hissing
> noise. Its an air powered asymetric thrust rocket.

Ok, you've made it sound far too appealing. I want one now.

[dave]

Bleve wrote:
> dave wrote:
>
>
>>Thats not actually an episode I saw.. perfectly willing to say that
>>eposide was a dud.. since I didnt see it. But the Jaws one was genius.
>> And yeah we could have made a guess as to most of the results but it
>>was pretty convincing none the less.
>>
>>And "DO scuba bottles go bang when shot? Lets shoot one and see" is
>>not only a perfectly valid experiment but the result was not at all what
>>I expected. Obvious in hindsight but isnt everything?
>
>
> Ok, so why is this not good science?
>
> Firstly, there are quite a few different types of SCUBA
> tank - they can be made of various aluminium alloys, steel, and there
> are some made of composites (but these are rare). Over the
> past 40 years or so, SCUBA tank construction has changed somewhat.

well it was the 25 year jaws special.. so weirdly 25 years. Go figure.
They actually had one of the original Jaws scuba tanks and used
exactly the same type. Seems fair to me.
>
> Secondly, there are a number of different types of bullet. They
> will behave in different ways when striking metal. Some will bounce,
> some will penetrate intact, some will fragment etc.

Really? High powered rifle.. a half inch of alloy. Trust me it will
go right thru. Unless we shoot cheese bullets and possibly even than
then. They used a 308 firing winchester match ammo. Exactly the
rifle and probably the ammo used in Jaws
>
> Thirdly, SCUBA tanks can have different air pressures in them - the
> normal inflation pressure for a 100cf steel tank is 220 bar (~220
> atmospheres). There are also low pressure tanks (140bar or so) and
> some that are rated to 300 bar or more. These are rare, but not unheard
> of.

See point one. But really I cant see a bigger bang from lower air
pressure. Since they were trying for a bang pump it up
>
> Fourth, metal fatigue and corrosion can alter the behaviour of a tank
> under pressure (yes, they *can* explode).

Apparently not when shot.

Tank valves are fitted with
> burst disks to prevent this occuring, but sometimes the burst disks
> can be blocked, sometimes older valves have no disks and so on.

How would a valve stop it from exploding when shot assuming it were to
explode when shot? Just out of curiosity.
>
> Fifth, the gas mixes within SCUBA tanks are not necessarily just
> 79/20/1
> (ie: plain air). They can have higher concentrations of Oxygen
> (commonly
> known as "NITROX or EAN"), helium (trimix, heliox etc) and so on.
> Sometimes, hydrogen has been used as a mixing gas also.


See point one.
>
> There are many other variables also.

Lemme guess. Atmospheric density. tracer round, Pollution index
on the day. The shark having haltosis. Phase of the moon. Sharks
starsign. Amount of grant being given to scientists investigation
exploding sharks.

>
> So, what did our cheerful entertainers achieve with this "experiment"?
> They shot an unknown tank, with an unknown pressure and in an unknown
> state of corrosion and fatigue, with an unknown projectile, at an
> unknown
> velocity, and saw a bullet penetrate the tank. Does this prove
> anything?
> No.

It proves that a bullet penetrates the tank. It proved that it didnt
go bang. Maybe they should have done it with a propane tank, Hmmmm
maybe one filled with LPG. Oh wait it was the jaws special and see
point one.


Is it entertaining? Yes. If they'd done it properly, they'd have
> made rather boring TV. They're not doing science, they're doing
> entertainment.
>

Fine be bored. I can;t be bothered any more. Lets just disagree.

[dave]

Resound wrote:
> "dave" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Resound wrote:
>>
>>>"dave" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Stuart Lamble wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 2005-10-24, dave > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>TimC wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Or weakening a bridge so substantially, that the result they tried to
>>>>>>>show of an oscillation in a bridge was so unconvincing that it was not
>>>>>>>possible to say it was oscillations that killed it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But were they not trying to disprove the oscillation hypothesis? And
>>>>>>so trying to say if it ever happened it was going to happen with this
>>>>>>bridge.. seems fair.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Disprove it? It's a bit hard to disprove the Tacoma Narrows Bridge ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thats not actually an episode I saw.. perfectly willing to say that
>>>>eposide was a dud.. since I didnt see it. But the Jaws one was genius.
>>>>And yeah we could have made a guess as to most of the results but it was
>>>>pretty convincing none the less.
>>>>
>>>>And "DO scuba bottles go bang when shot? Lets shoot one and see" is
>>>>not only a perfectly valid experiment but the result was not at all what
>>>>I expected. Obvious in hindsight but isnt everything?
>>>
>>>
>>>So what DO scuba bottles do when shot? I would have expected a loud,
>>>short lived hissing noise. Possibly a bit of a bang if it split.
>>
>>well what happens is that the thing whips around at huge velocities. If
>>it had been in the sharks mouth it would have taken its head off
>>
>>Impact from the rifle.. a hole thru both ends and a loud and long hissing
>>noise. Its an air powered asymetric thrust rocket.
>
>
> Ok, you've made it sound far too appealing. I want one now.
>
>

Come to think of it :)

[Kim Hawtin]

dave wrote:
> Stuart Lamble wrote:
>
>> On 2005-10-25, Graeme Dods > wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't see that one, but I wouldn't have thought they did. Maybe go
>>> pffffftt with big jet(s) of condensation, but not bang. What was the
>>> result?
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, I don't know about shooting a scuba tank, but I've been told that
>> if such a tank should fall over and break its valve, it'll take off at a
>> rate of knots, going through even a brick wall.
>>
>> Given that the air inside one is typically around two hundred times
>> atmospheric pressure, I can believe it.
>>
>
> Yep exactly. And as I said obvious in retrospect

i have seen this happen with an accetalen bottle...
fell of the back of a ute, valve split, launched, came down a
coupl'a'hundred meters away in an emtpy paddock, serveral minutes later.
no bang, just think jet engine!

cheers,

kim

[dave]

Kim Hawtin wrote:
> dave wrote:
>
>>Stuart Lamble wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 2005-10-25, Graeme Dods > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I didn't see that one, but I wouldn't have thought they did. Maybe go
>>>>pffffftt with big jet(s) of condensation, but not bang. What was the
>>>>result?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, I don't know about shooting a scuba tank, but I've been told that
>>>if such a tank should fall over and break its valve, it'll take off at a
>>>rate of knots, going through even a brick wall.
>>>
>>>Given that the air inside one is typically around two hundred times
>>>atmospheric pressure, I can believe it.
>>>
>>
>>Yep exactly. And as I said obvious in retrospect
>
>
> i have seen this happen with an accetalen bottle...
> fell of the back of a ute, valve split, launched, came down a
> coupl'a'hundred meters away in an emtpy paddock, serveral minutes later.
> no bang, just think jet engine!
>
> cheers,
>
> kim


Yeah but thats just a rocket... (One that might have expoded when shot)
With 2 asymetrical holes in it this was more like well I can;t think..
insane anyway.

Dave

[Graeme Dods]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:38:13 +0930, Kim Hawtin wrote:

> i have seen this happen with an accetalen bottle...
> fell of the back of a ute, valve split, launched, came down a
> coupl'a'hundred meters away in an emtpy paddock, serveral minutes later.
> no bang, just think jet engine!

The old "whack the valve off the gas bottle" trick was used on a number of
occasions by the IRA to attack police stations in Northern Ireland. I can't
remember if any explosives were attached or not, but a gas bottle landing
from height at high speed would probably do a fair amount of damage on its
own (although, understandably, accuracy was a problem).

Graeme

[Bleve]

dave wrote:

> > Secondly, there are a number of different types of bullet. They
> > will behave in different ways when striking metal. Some will bounce,
> > some will penetrate intact, some will fragment etc.
>
> Really? High powered rifle.. a half inch of alloy. Trust me it will
> go right thru. Unless we shoot cheese bullets and possibly even than
> then.

Or you don't hit it square? What's the critical angle for
deflection or penetration? What if it hit at such an angle
that it tore a section of tank? what if .. what if ...


> > Fourth, metal fatigue and corrosion can alter the behaviour of a tank
> > under pressure (yes, they *can* explode).
>
> Apparently not when shot.

You still don't know that for sure, which is why it has
proved nothing.

> Tank valves are fitted with
> > burst disks to prevent this occuring, but sometimes the burst disks
> > can be blocked, sometimes older valves have no disks and so on.
>
> How would a valve stop it from exploding when shot assuming it were to
> explode when shot? Just out of curiosity.

I'm showing that SCUBA tanks are designed with safety features because
they can explode.

Now, I don't know if a tank (any tank in mind? even one jigged
up to get eaten by a rubber shark in a movie) could explode if hit
by a bullet, but after the "experiment", you don't know either. You
only know that these lads had a bit of fun shooting at a tank and you
enjoyed watching it.


> > There are many other variables also.
>
> Lemme guess. Atmospheric density. tracer round, Pollution index
> on the day. The shark having haltosis. Phase of the moon. Sharks
> starsign. Amount of grant being given to scientists investigation
> exploding sharks.

Ok, here's one possibility - since you cite exploding sharks, not
exploding tanks.

*if* the round hit the tank in such a way that it caused a significant
rupture, rather than an in and out hole (eg, it hit the valve and tore
it off - maybe possible, I don't know and neither do you), then a
significant quantity of air would be released very quickly - which if
released into a confined space (eg, a shark's digestive system) then
quite possibly a shark could explode.

I don't think it's very likely, but it's not been disproved. No myth
has been broken. It's not science.

> > So, what did our cheerful entertainers achieve with this "experiment"?
> > They shot an unknown tank, with an unknown pressure and in an unknown
> > state of corrosion and fatigue, with an unknown projectile, at an
> > unknown
> > velocity, and saw a bullet penetrate the tank. Does this prove
> > anything?
> > No.
>
> It proves that a bullet penetrates the tank. It proved that it didnt
> go bang.


In that instance. Not *necesarily* in every instance. If they'd really
wanted to disprove the myth they would have to have actually done some
rigourous experimentation. They don't. They have fun, and it's fun to
watch. Enjoy it for what it is, but it is *not* science. It's the sort
of experimental method that you teach kids in primary school because
you don't want to bore them with concepts like rigour and accuracy and
thoroughness.

Here's another bogus experiment they did: They were testing some story
about a tuba and a firecracker blowing over a conductor and flinging
the tuba slide into an audience. How did they do this? Simple : pop a
cracker into a tuba in a jig, and see what happens. the tuba blew a
stand over, but the slider did not come out. They then used a bigger
cracker, and blew the tuba to bits. Fun! But, a very poorly designed
and fundamentally flawed experiment. If they had partially blocked the
tuba mouthpiece (thus simulating the conditions more accuratly) then
there's a much greater chance that the air, having nowhere to go, would
indeed have blown the slider out of the tuba. Did they test this with
a number of tubas and a number of different explosives? Did they have
the slide set up as a concert tuba player would have? Did they test it
with the slide in various stages of extension? Did they prove anything
except that a cracker will blow a tuba to bits? Nope ... but, it was
entertaining!

Here's something for you to chew on :

1 is a prime number
2 is a prime number
3 is a prime number

Therefore, all numbers are prime.

If your experimental sample is too small, you get bull**** results.
Real experimental method is painstaking and thorough, and isn't
generally all that entertaining. The steam lance experiment we did at
uni was a lot of fun though!

[TimC]

On 2005-10-25, Kim Hawtin (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> dave wrote:
>> Stuart Lamble wrote:
>>> Well, I don't know about shooting a scuba tank, but I've been told that
>>> if such a tank should fall over and break its valve, it'll take off at a
>>> rate of knots, going through even a brick wall.
>>
>> Yep exactly. And as I said obvious in retrospect
>
> i have seen this happen with an accetalen bottle...
> fell of the back of a ute, valve split, launched, came down a
> coupl'a'hundred meters away in an emtpy paddock, serveral minutes later.
> no bang, just think jet engine!

Hey Gags! Got any gas bottles at your place? Your kids will love *that*!

--
TimC
"I often hear people claim they perform skills better slightly drunk if
they learned that skill drunk. I wonder if that applies to Perl. Get good
and liquored up, dash off a few scripts, see how you like it." -Rob Chanter

[Tony H]

TimC Wrote:
> On 2005-10-25, Kim Hawtin (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > dave wrote:
> >> Stuart Lamble wrote:
> >>> Well, I don't know about shooting a scuba tank, but I've been told
> that
> >>> if such a tank should fall over and break its valve, it'll take off
> at a
> >>> rate of knots, going through even a brick wall.
> >>
> >> Yep exactly. And as I said obvious in retrospect
> >
> > i have seen this happen with an accetalen bottle...
> > fell of the back of a ute, valve split, launched, came down a
> > coupl'a'hundred meters away in an emtpy paddock, serveral minutes
> later.
> > no bang, just think jet engine!
>
> Hey Gags! Got any gas bottles at your place? Your kids will love
> *that*!
>
> --
> TimC
> "I often hear people claim they perform skills better slightly drunk if
> they learned that skill drunk. I wonder if that applies to Perl. Get
> good
> and liquored up, dash off a few scripts, see how you like it." -Rob
> Chanter

having worked in the gas industry since 1983, I have seen cylinders
explode.
worst case was a cylinder being filled in Durban South Africa, where it
had been expocy coated and the thermal changes in the process caused the
cylinder to weaken. This accident resulted in the death of four people,
including a baby in a pushchair near the facility, The second was a
cylinder overfilled and left in the back cab of a Toyota hilux in the
sun, that cylinder heated up to close to 40deg C before exploding.
think I still have the pics some place. Lastly was a dive cylinder that
had been welded on :eek: ( yes some idiot welded on lugs) and that one
ruptured on fill.. luckly no one injured.
as for shooting them, I think 90% of the time it will make a small hole
and take off like a rocket, but if the cyilder is weak and if the bullet
was too tear in at an angle, then I believe it can rupture or explode.
I have a pic is of an oxy-weld cylinder that went poof... welder was
put into several buckets and taken away :eek: . I would post it, but
can't seem to link pics in on this forum

Tony


--
Tony H

[Theo Bekkers]

Bleve wrote:

> Or you don't hit it square? What's the critical angle for
> deflection or penetration? What if it hit at such an angle
> that it tore a section of tank? what if .. what if ...

Etc for 110 lines. If you were a TV show, I would have turned you off by now
and learnt nothing. Mythbusters is enertaining and you can become aware of
things. The show does not pretend to give you definitive or exact scientific
answers and you should not expect any.

Theo

[Bleve]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
>
> > Or you don't hit it square? What's the critical angle for
> > deflection or penetration? What if it hit at such an angle
> > that it tore a section of tank? what if .. what if ...
>
> Etc for 110 lines. If you were a TV show, I would have turned you off by now
> and learnt nothing. Mythbusters is enertaining and you can become aware of
> things. The show does not pretend to give you definitive or exact scientific
> answers and you should not expect any.

*exactly* It's just like primary school science lessons. No real
rigour, but it keeps the kids amused, and some of them may be
interested enough to do some research and some genuine experiments.
Try to do the job properly, and the kids change channels and watch
neighbors or some other drivel.

[Theo Bekkers]

Bleve wrote:

> *exactly* It's just like primary school science lessons. No real
> rigour, but it keeps the kids amused, and some of them may be
> interested enough to do some research and some genuine experiments.
> Try to do the job properly, and the kids change channels and watch
> neighbors or some other drivel.

Know your audience, be they primary-school kids or channel-surfers. :-)

Theo

[dave]

Bleve wrote:
> dave wrote:
>
>
>>>Secondly, there are a number of different types of bullet. They
>>>will behave in different ways when striking metal. Some will bounce,
>>>some will penetrate intact, some will fragment etc.
>>
>>Really? High powered rifle.. a half inch of alloy. Trust me it will
>>go right thru. Unless we shoot cheese bullets and possibly even than
>>then.
>
>
> Or you don't hit it square? What's the critical angle for
> deflection or penetration? What if it hit at such an angle
> that it tore a section of tank? what if .. what if ...
>


Ummmm what mechanism for explosion are u proposing here< I am pretty
sure that whatever happens the round will either penetrate or not
>
>
>>>Fourth, metal fatigue and corrosion can alter the behaviour of a tank
>>>under pressure (yes, they *can* explode).
>>
>>Apparently not when shot.
>
>
> You still don't know that for sure, which is why it has
> proved nothing.


I was sure before they did the experiment. I,m surer now. But yeah
untill we shoot every scuba tank in the world.. we dont ´know´ that one
wont explode. But it wont.
>
>
>>Tank valves are fitted with
>>
>>>burst disks to prevent this occuring, but sometimes the burst disks
>>>can be blocked, sometimes older valves have no disks and so on.
>>
>>How would a valve stop it from exploding when shot assuming it were to
>>explode when shot? Just out of curiosity.
>
>
> I'm showing that SCUBA tanks are designed with safety features because
> they can explode.


Ummmm thats so if the valve is knocked off they emulate a rocket .. no?
>
> Now, I don't know if a tank (any tank in mind? even one jigged
> up to get eaten by a rubber shark in a movie) could explode if hit
> by a bullet, but after the "experiment", you don't know either. You
> only know that these lads had a bit of fun shooting at a tank and you
> enjoyed watching it.
>

I am prepared to not plan on the explosion taking jaws out tho. We are
going to have to disagree on this.
>
>
>>>There are many other variables also.
>>
>>Lemme guess. Atmospheric density. tracer round, Pollution index
>>on the day. The shark having haltosis. Phase of the moon. Sharks
>>starsign. Amount of grant being given to scientists investigation
>>exploding sharks.
>
>
> Ok, here's one possibility - since you cite exploding sharks, not
> exploding tanks.
>
> *if* the round hit the tank in such a way that it caused a significant
> rupture, rather than an in and out hole (eg, it hit the valve and tore
> it off - maybe possible, I don't know and neither do you), then a
> significant quantity of air would be released very quickly - which if
> released into a confined space (eg, a shark's digestive system) then
> quite possibly a shark could explode.

With fire? I know methane.. Well in fact shooting the thing would
absolutely have taken the sharks head off so it would have been worked.
>
> I don't think it's very likely, but it's not been disproved. No myth
> has been broken. It's not science.
>
>
>>>So, what did our cheerful entertainers achieve with this "experiment"?
>>>They shot an unknown tank, with an unknown pressure and in an unknown
>>>state of corrosion and fatigue, with an unknown projectile, at an
>>>unknown
>>>velocity, and saw a bullet penetrate the tank. Does this prove
>>>anything?
>>>No.
>>
>>It proves that a bullet penetrates the tank. It proved that it didnt
>>go bang.
>
>
>
> In that instance. Not *necesarily* in every instance. If they'd really
> wanted to disprove the myth they would have to have actually done some
> rigourous experimentation. They don't. They have fun, and it's fun to
> watch. Enjoy it for what it is, but it is *not* science. It's the sort
> of experimental method that you teach kids in primary school because
> you don't want to bore them with concepts like rigour and accuracy and
> thoroughness.


But they repeated it 750 times with the same result.. THey just didnt
want to bore us by showing them al


>
> Here's another bogus experiment they did: They were testing some story
> about a tuba and a firecracker blowing over a conductor and flinging
> the tuba slide into an audience. How did they do this? Simple : pop a
> cracker into a tuba in a jig, and see what happens. the tuba blew a
> stand over, but the slider did not come out. They then used a bigger
> cracker, and blew the tuba to bits. Fun! But, a very poorly designed
> and fundamentally flawed experiment. If they had partially blocked the
> tuba mouthpiece (thus simulating the conditions more accuratly) then
> there's a much greater chance that the air, having nowhere to go, would
> indeed have blown the slider out of the tuba. Did they test this with
> a number of tubas and a number of different explosives? Did they have
> the slide set up as a concert tuba player would have? Did they test it
> with the slide in various stages of extension? Did they prove anything
> except that a cracker will blow a tuba to bits? Nope ... but, it was
> entertaining!
>
> Here's something for you to chew on :
>
> 1 is a prime number
> 2 is a prime number
> 3 is a prime number
>
> Therefore, all numbers are prime.


Ahuh.... I see where you are going with this.
I have a BMW you have a BMW THerefore you are me.


>
> If your experimental sample is too small, you get bull**** results.
> Real experimental method is painstaking and thorough, and isn't
> generally all that entertaining. The steam lance experiment we did at
> uni was a lot of fun though

You must have a boring life.. LIke I said .. leave it.. it aint worth
the angst.

[dave]

Tony H wrote:
> TimC Wrote:
>
>>On 2005-10-25, Kim Hawtin (aka Bruce)
>>was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>
>>>dave wrote:
>>>
>>>>Stuart Lamble wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Well, I don't know about shooting a scuba tank, but I've been told
>>
>>that
>>
>>>>>if such a tank should fall over and break its valve, it'll take off
>>
>>at a
>>
>>>>>rate of knots, going through even a brick wall.
>>>>
>>>>Yep exactly. And as I said obvious in retrospect
>>>
>>>i have seen this happen with an accetalen bottle...
>>>fell of the back of a ute, valve split, launched, came down a
>>>coupl'a'hundred meters away in an emtpy paddock, serveral minutes
>>
>>later.
>>
>>>no bang, just think jet engine!
>>
>>Hey Gags! Got any gas bottles at your place? Your kids will love
>>*that*!
>>
>>--
>>TimC
>>"I often hear people claim they perform skills better slightly drunk if
>>they learned that skill drunk. I wonder if that applies to Perl. Get
>>good
>>and liquored up, dash off a few scripts, see how you like it." -Rob
>>Chanter
>
>
> having worked in the gas industry since 1983, I have seen cylinders
> explode.
> worst case was a cylinder being filled in Durban South Africa, where it
> had been expocy coated and the thermal changes in the process caused the
> cylinder to weaken. This accident resulted in the death of four people,
> including a baby in a pushchair near the facility, The second was a
> cylinder overfilled and left in the back cab of a Toyota hilux in the
> sun, that cylinder heated up to close to 40deg C before exploding.
> think I still have the pics some place. Lastly was a dive cylinder that
> had been welded on :eek: ( yes some idiot welded on lugs) and that one
> ruptured on fill.. luckly no one injured.
> as for shooting them, I think 90% of the time it will make a small hole
> and take off like a rocket, but if the cyilder is weak and if the bullet
> was too tear in at an angle, then I believe it can rupture or explode.
> I have a pic is of an oxy-weld cylinder that went poof... welder was
> put into several buckets and taken away :eek: . I would post it, but
> can't seem to link pics in on this forum
>
> Tony
>
>
I think if it was way cracked or fatigued it might explode.. But not
when shot. The shockwave from the round aint going to do it and
internal pressure is instantly going to fall.

[Bleve]

dave wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
> > dave wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Secondly, there are a number of different types of bullet. They
> >>>will behave in different ways when striking metal. Some will bounce,
> >>>some will penetrate intact, some will fragment etc.
> >>
> >>Really? High powered rifle.. a half inch of alloy. Trust me it will
> >>go right thru. Unless we shoot cheese bullets and possibly even than
> >>then.
> >
> >
> > Or you don't hit it square? What's the critical angle for
> > deflection or penetration? What if it hit at such an angle
> > that it tore a section of tank? what if .. what if ...
> >
>
>
> Ummmm what mechanism for explosion are u proposing here< I am pretty
> sure that whatever happens the round will either penetrate or not


An explosion is a rapid expansion (usually of a gas), usually from some
form of confined space (eg: inside a pressure vessel of some form) into
less confined space. A SCUBA tank, if broken in such a way as to
create a large hole (as opposed to the small holes caused by the
particular projectile used in the case in point), will release its
contained air very rapidly indeed, causing what would conventionally be
described as an explosion. This could happen if a whole side was to
fracture, or a significant tear was to occur in the material.

Could a bullet cause a sufficiently large rupture in the tank? Maybe.
If it hit at the right angle, if it hit the base maybe? (the base of
an alloy tank is not like the rest of the tank, it's a lot thicker and
differently shaped). If it hit at a particular angle at the neck of
the tank?
If it hit at a particular speed? If the tank had some existing
weakness that wasn't visable on the surface? If some supernatural
rubber shark was chewing it such that it wore through some of the alloy
and weakened the tank somewhere?
If the tank was overinflated? If it had some internal corrosion
weakening it?
Maybe? But, you and I don't know for sure. The claim was that the
tank could not explode. This has *not* been proved.

> > I'm showing that SCUBA tanks are designed with safety features because
> > they can explode.
>
>
> Ummmm thats so if the valve is knocked off they emulate a rocket .. no?

If the valve is knocked off, they can do so, yes. If the tank
fractures due to some other stress, then who knows what might happen?
Not that long ago a new standard was introduced for tank testing in
Australia (I worked as a dive master for a dive shop for a while and I
paid attention, which is how I know this stuff) which was introduced
because a number of tanks failed at the neck during filling and
exploded. Stresses and corrosion build up inside tanks and they can
fail in ways that you and I would not necessarily expect. Could an
impact with a bullet cause a significant structural failure and thus,
an explosion? Maybe. We *don't know*. and after the mythbusters, we
are none the wiser.

> > Now, I don't know if a tank (any tank in mind? even one jigged
> > up to get eaten by a rubber shark in a movie) could explode if hit
> > by a bullet, but after the "experiment", you don't know either. You
> > only know that these lads had a bit of fun shooting at a tank and you
> > enjoyed watching it.
> >
>
> I am prepared to not plan on the explosion taking jaws out tho. We are
> going to have to disagree on this.

I wouldn't plan on having the time to place a tank into a huge great
white and then shooting the tank either! I'd be more inclined to just
shoot the shark!

> >>>There are many other variables also.
> >>
> >>Lemme guess. Atmospheric density. tracer round, Pollution index
> >>on the day. The shark having haltosis. Phase of the moon. Sharks
> >>starsign. Amount of grant being given to scientists investigation
> >>exploding sharks.
> >
> >
> > Ok, here's one possibility - since you cite exploding sharks, not
> > exploding tanks.
> >
> > *if* the round hit the tank in such a way that it caused a significant
> > rupture, rather than an in and out hole (eg, it hit the valve and tore
> > it off - maybe possible, I don't know and neither do you), then a
> > significant quantity of air would be released very quickly - which if
> > released into a confined space (eg, a shark's digestive system) then
> > quite possibly a shark could explode.
>
> With fire? I know methane.. Well in fact shooting the thing would
> absolutely have taken the sharks head off so it would have been worked.

You're assuming an explosion has to be caused by a flamable material.
It's just a rapid release of pressure.

> > In that instance. Not *necesarily* in every instance. If they'd really
> > wanted to disprove the myth they would have to have actually done some
> > rigourous experimentation. They don't. They have fun, and it's fun to
> > watch. Enjoy it for what it is, but it is *not* science. It's the sort
> > of experimental method that you teach kids in primary school because
> > you don't want to bore them with concepts like rigour and accuracy and
> > thoroughness.
>
>
> But they repeated it 750 times with the same result.. THey just didnt
> want to bore us by showing them al

heh!

> > Here's another bogus experiment they did: They were testing some story
> > about a tuba and a firecracker blowing over a conductor and flinging
> > the tuba slide into an audience. How did they do this? Simple : pop a
> > cracker into a tuba in a jig, and see what happens. the tuba blew a
> > stand over, but the slider did not come out. They then used a bigger
> > cracker, and blew the tuba to bits. Fun! But, a very poorly designed
> > and fundamentally flawed experiment. If they had partially blocked the
> > tuba mouthpiece (thus simulating the conditions more accuratly) then
> > there's a much greater chance that the air, having nowhere to go, would
> > indeed have blown the slider out of the tuba. Did they test this with
> > a number of tubas and a number of different explosives? Did they have
> > the slide set up as a concert tuba player would have? Did they test it
> > with the slide in various stages of extension? Did they prove anything
> > except that a cracker will blow a tuba to bits? Nope ... but, it was
> > entertaining!
> >
> > Here's something for you to chew on :
> >
> > 1 is a prime number
> > 2 is a prime number
> > 3 is a prime number
> >
> > Therefore, all numbers are prime.
>
>
> Ahuh.... I see where you are going with this.
> I have a BMW you have a BMW THerefore you are me.

Only if they're the same colour :)

Do you get the point I'm trying to make yet? They're not doing
science,
they're doing entertainment, and mixing in a bit of dodgey
pseudoscience with it. Now, there's nothing *wrong* with that, but
there *is* something wrong with taking their results and using them to
prove anything. They're entertaining, but in many cases, anyone who
paid attention during high school or uni science can see through it for
what it is.

Here's a suggestion for you (you keep following up, so this must mean
something to you): Next episode, think about what it is that they're
trying to prove, and see if you can spot the assumptions they're making
about their conditions. Then, see if you can think of another way to
test their contention, or if you can see any flaws in their experiment
that may interfere with any results (and thus, invalidate any
conclusions). The problem with many experiments is hidden in the
assumpions the experimenters make when designing the experiment.

Or, just watch it for fun (it is, after all, fun!), but if you do just
watch it for fun, do yourself a favour and don't believe their results
prove anything.

[TimC]

On 2005-10-27, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> An explosion is a rapid expansion (usually of a gas), usually from some
> form of confined space (eg: inside a pressure vessel of some form) into
> less confined space. A SCUBA tank, if broken in such a way as to
> create a large hole (as opposed to the small holes caused by the
> particular projectile used in the case in point), will release its
> contained air very rapidly indeed, causing what would conventionally be
> described as an explosion. This could happen if a whole side was to
> fracture, or a significant tear was to occur in the material.

And the reason Bleve knows this is because he was named after this
event (I don't know what his parents were thinking :) :

Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion.

--
TimC
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.

[Bleve]

TimC wrote:
> On 2005-10-27, Bleve (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > An explosion is a rapid expansion (usually of a gas), usually from some
> > form of confined space (eg: inside a pressure vessel of some form) into
> > less confined space. A SCUBA tank, if broken in such a way as to
> > create a large hole (as opposed to the small holes caused by the
> > particular projectile used in the case in point), will release its
> > contained air very rapidly indeed, causing what would conventionally be
> > described as an explosion. This could happen if a whole side was to
> > fracture, or a significant tear was to occur in the material.
>
> And the reason Bleve knows this is because he was named after this
> event (I don't know what his parents were thinking :) :
>
> Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion.

A brief history of farting :)