Talk:MythBusters (2004 season)

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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)

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)

You are being ridiculous, Drat. What is common sense to undergraduates studying electrical engineering need not be considered original research. A5 20:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read WP:NOR. I have updated the article again. The "research" involves looking up a number from one Wikipedia article in a table in another. I hope that it is not too original. If it is, perhaps you can tell me what else I can do. I am worried that people will read this page and be misled by the bad science. I think that there should be a way to avoid causing that to happen. A5 13:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't cite Wikipedia articles to support others. Also, while Kirchoff's laws might be common sense to people studying electrical engineering, it wouldn't be to the average Joe. It's been two years since an article was nuked that was overflowing with people performing original analysis of the MythBusters' experiments. The science may be imperfect, but that should be taken up with the people behind the show, not here.--Drat (Talk) 13:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't owe anything to the people behind the show, and they don't owe anything to me. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative encyclopedia. My goal is to keep visitors to this encyclopedia from being misled by bad science on a page that you keep reverting. Please tell me what is the simplest thing I can do to achieve this goal. A5 13:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that has made the analysis, cite it and add the info.--Drat (Talk) 13:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In other words, I can put up a web page which says the same thing as what I wrote in the article, but referencing reliable, non-Wikipedia sources instead of the Wikipedia articles, and then put a link to it in the article, and you will not revert it?A5 13:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the source would have to be reliable, so no, you can't just put it up on a web page and cite it.--Drat (Talk) 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What is reliable? The page you linked says "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". This is a very simple claim. It is not contentious. Hopefully you don't expect me to wait until somebody is bored enough to devote a PhD to MythBusters to be able to correct this problem.A5 14:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are two other suggestions: (a) I could add the expert-subject template, "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." to flag that there is an error. (b) I could delete the offensive sentence altogether (i.e. the first sentence in the section). A friend pointed out that the sentence more likely than not didn't appear in the MythBusters episode, since it is so clearly incorrect. Perhaps it should be deleted until someone can verify whether it was in the episode or not, and if yes, clarify the apparent logical error. It seems that explaining this error should be the burden of the person who added the sentence, just like adding [sic] after misspelled words in a quotation should be the burden of the person who found the quote, since the rest of us cannot be expected to have the time and money to buy and watch the episode ourselves. I would not delete a line of a poem if it had a mistake; but in this case the sentence I want to delete does not really add anything to the rest of the sentences. I think the section would not suffer if it were removed. A5 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Drat, since you have not replied, I have edited the article as per my suggestion (b). A5 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

• i had a question about this as well. if its true, that they are in face, incorrect, then we will need to change not only Wikipedia, but also Wikiquote (thats where i first saw the problem) Osmo250 23:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Episode numbers incorrect

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383126/episodes—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedistkrieg (talk • contribs) .

Talking to Plants

I was watching this episode yesterday, but didn't get to see the final results of the experiment. Did the plants receiving classical music grow better than the plants which recieved the looped speech tracks, or did they just grow better than the control? The current description isn't all that clear. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• the plants that grew better were the rock music plants, with the biggest pea pods and biggest plant growth. atleast thats what i remember, im going to break out my DVDs now to check on that... here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%28season_2%29#Talking_to_Plants Osmo250 23:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Songs used

Xushi: It would be informative to those that would want to do the same experiment, as well as those who are interested in knowing what music the team used in order to further their knowledge on both the classical and black/death metal band and/or songs that were used for the plants.

Edit: Sorry but i must add this.. Please show respect to who reverted my change. This isn't a forum and no one said it was. This information is useful for others for many other reasons, the same as the 1000 other information bits found in the article. If you want to remove something, remove the topic above regarding the user asking a question because he didn't finish the episode.. Or don't remove anything, and let the users write useful information. There's no restriction to what we can or cant' write from what i can see, as long as it's relevant and informative. There's no difference between this piece of information, or the other questions that are in the discussion page.

Thank you.

'Bullet Proof Water' Question

Does anyone know what the name of that 50 cal gun was?--142.68.44.140 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Season subdivision, reference

Why aren't there any source references to the season subdivisions? Where do you get the information on when each season begins? There seem to bee different information on different websites. And the official MythBusters site doesn't list seasons at all. Wouldn't it be better to just arrange the episodes under year and skip the season subdivisions if there are no secure sources?! / Dreamingtree (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The list is incorrect

Apparently the Discovery Channel page was misinterpreted. It seems to be organized per year rather than per season, and so some episodes listed here are in fact from season 1 (up to "Buried in Concrete" to be exactly).

While the Internet Movie Database is supposedly unreliable, it seems to be the best source for correct season separation. Plus, the dates make more sense that way.177.228.43.103 (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

All of the season articles are organised by year, not season, since MythBusters doesn't follow a traditional season, as explained in the lead of List of MythBusters episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MythBusters (2004 season). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811232442/http://www.clickorlando.com/news/2491417/detail.html to http://www.clickorlando.com/news/2491417/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:MythBusters (2003 season) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)