Talk:MythBusters (2006 season)

Cereal Box Myth - What you didn't see.

{{spoiler}} During their nationwide tour, Jamie and Adam showed footage from the recently broadcast Cereal Box myth testing that was not shown on television (and never will be). Since neither of them were willing to actually eat the cardboard for an extended period of time, it was decided that laboratory mice would be used. The mice were placed in cages, with a control being fed food pellets, one cage being fed the cereal, and one cage being fed the cardboard pellets (mixed with non-caloric sweetener). The health of the mice would then be monitored, most notably their weight. The cages were set and left overnight.

The next morning, it was found where there were two mice in the cage with the cardboard pellets, there was now only one. The mouse in question apparently found the cardboard so unsatisfying that it preferred to devourer its cagemate instead. It was decided that this helped bust the myth in the most disturbing fashion, and the mouse in question was then fed to a pet snake. --Paul Soth 02:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. I think we can consider THAT urban legend busted - I saw that ep, and there were no mice in it.

Not to mention the unlikelihood that a typically herbivorous mouse could entirely eat one of its brethren, and would choose to do so in only one night with sub-par food. That seems completely and utterly impossible. -Nakamura2828 08:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I was in Columbus at the theater where Jamie and Adam came to do their live MythBuster show. I saw the clip and the information here is real. They cut the mice from the show because they didn't want anyone to have to look at the half eaten mouse. It's all on tape and was shown to all of us at the show. CDS Columbus Ohio May 22, 2008

Watch it again, you'll see black and white video footage of lab mice. The fact was that the dead mouse was not totally devoured, but what was left of it was placed in the trash (and was taken out by Adam who jokingly weighed it). This part of the experiment was only shown on Jamie and Adam's nationwide tour back in the spring of 2006. It was decided that this part would never be broadcast on television since it was felt that it was too disturbing for broadcast. However, the audience in the theater I was in loved it.

Oh, and here's a quote from the mouse article:

Mice generally live on a herbivore diet, but are actually omnivores: they will eat meat, the dead bodies of other mice, and have been observed to self-cannibalise their tails during starvation. Grasshopper mice are an exception to the rule, being the only fully carnivorous mice. Mice eat grains, fruits, and seeds for a regular diet, which is the main reason they damage crops. They sometimes eat their own droppings, on rare occasions.

Having personally seen pet rats eat their dead (and it's vile as it sounds), it's not that far fetched. --Paul Soth 09:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

For the semi-related tooth myth, I've moved that to the outtakes on the special episodes page --Alanhwiki 06:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Adam Savage talking about the Cereal Box Myth and the mice: http://fora.tv/2010/05/22/Adam_Savage_Presents_Problem_Solving_How_I_Do_It#Adam_Savage_Banned_MythBusters_Episode_on_Cannibal_Mouse - There were 3 mice in each cage. Over the final weekend, one of the mice in the cardboard cage ate both the other mice in its cage. All that was left of those two were the head, tail, and a rib cage. Izkata (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's possible the other two died of starvation and then were eaten by the one that hadn't succumbed yet, rather than that one of them killed the other two. Jeh (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Are these really shows of Season 4?

Well I kinda wonder if these airing shows on Discovery are really the new Season.

Does anyone know whether that is correct or not??

When I was on the show for 4 days I had a chance to talk with the producer/creator Peter Reese, and later while doing research for the show to talk with the second producer of the show Dan Tapster. From that private conversation I was told that Discovery was not using standard 12 month, or winter episodes and summer reruns for their seasons, but were actually running what they call seasons much faster than that. This is why the Discovery channel season and episode number do not match the calendar first release dates. However I have no published or third party confirmation of this so I can only present it here as unofficial informational. Mike Bushroe. 21:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.7.57 (talk)

I don't recall Discovery ever mentioning these episodes as a new season in any fashion. I do know, however, that they most likely filmed these episodes in early to mid-spring (when the Bay Area's sunset was at 5:30p). Is anyone able to find verification that these episodes constitute a new season? --Flip619 04:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we know that MB is in season 4 (Kari said so on her "Late Show" interview), but does anyone know that these episodes are part of it? Flip619 17:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think they are; I think S4 starts after the "Mega Movie Myths" episode (that's the way it's showing up in torrents, anyway). The discovery website is not helpful, and tv.com just lists each calendar year as a separate season (so S4 started in Jan of this year--(I don't think so...)).74.133.250.136 07:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Me neither... well you know... seasons normally start off with a "revisiting" episode and that did not happen yet. and discovery wouldve said "brand new season airing on XXX"

You guys may want to have a look what imdb has to say: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383126/episodes. It seams that S4 starts with "Hindenburg Mystery" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.206.184.226 (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Tesla's Earthquake Machine

In one of the first season episodes, Adam stated that, "There is always two parts to testing a myth: replicate the myth, and duplicate the result." It seemed the Mythbusters gave up too easy on this one. I would have liked to see them bring destruction to some kind of object with a motorized osillator. Even though they didn't have to bring down the bridge, they could have settled for destroying the model of Tesla's building with Grant's device. However it's an established concept in physics, that if you match the frequency of an object, it will eventually break, or fall down. I guess that's why we don't teach kids that they can push down a telephone pole if the time it right...

No, it is not an established concept in physics that "if you match the frequency of an object, it will eventually break, or fall down". In fact, many many objects are designed to work for long periods of time in such a condition, like musical instruments. Spejic 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a violation of physics that a simple frequency matching causes catastrophic failure. Such a result only happens when the amount of energy in a system becomes more than the system can handle. While it would seem that constantly introducing more and more energy into a system would eventually cause a breakdown, you have to remember that energy is also constantly being lost (transferred out of the system) due to things like friction. This is what allows a guitar string to oscillate and not break. Now, if you applied energy to the string faster than it could be dissipated, it would snap. This is why Adam and Jamie were able to set up a resonance in the Carquinez Bridge without it crashing down. The structure was able to dissipate the energy they were introducing before it rose to unsafe levels. 71.146.5.255 21:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The first edition of the 1,524 meter long Tacoma Narrows suspension bridge in Puget Sound, USA was destroyed on November 7, 1940 by wind-induced mechanical resonance. This incident is often used in engineering courses to illustrate the awesome power of mechanical resonance if the structure is not designed to properly dampen it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge

Resonance by itself is not awesome. The wind was putting large amounts of energy into the bridge system. A small input, even if it is causing resonance, won't do the same thing. (And again, this is not a place to discuss the findings. And you should sign your edits.) Spejic 11:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Steam Cannon & Wikipedia!!!

During the Steam Cannon episode, they show Grant doing research for the cardboard box myth online, including a screen shot of what appears to be the Wikipedia article Calorimeter. Although the logo wasn't shown, the spacing for the search bar was clearly visible, along with the math equations that appear in the article. Can this be added to a trivia section, and is there someplace on Wikipedia to report this "sighting in popular culture." --Phantom784 14:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's already on Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_source_on_TV_and_radio, and is mentioned in the talk pagbe for Calorimeter. Still could probably go as a trivia for the episode. --Phantom784 14:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a brief shot in Earthquake Machine where Jamie has some Wikipedia article up on the screen, though they don't talk about it. It comes right after they decide to build a scale model of Tesla's laboratory and Jamie is looking at a book with the computer in the background, open to Wikipedia. I'd wager they refer to Wikipedia quite a lot whether or not it makes it on the show. -Anþony 06:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mega Movie Myths

Sorry guys about what I did last night, I was reading the disc. channell programme and found that the latest episode was named mega movie myths, a two hour special, I even wrote that. Anyway, I put the episode into the season 4 listing and went to bed, I woke up this morning walked over to my pc and thought... Damn! I completely forgot about the specials page, I felt like such an idiot! Anyway, Keep up the good work on this guide people :) --Aaron J Nicoli 00:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible Myth Re-Visit

Hello, I was watching the Mythbusters episode where they debunked the pops rocks/soda myth in which eating pop rocks and drinking soda at the same time will kill you however I recently saw one of those mentos/soda eruptions on the internet and it made me wonder. Is it possible that the mentos/soda reaction could be interpreted as a mondern day version of the pop rocks/soda myth, that consuming soda and eating mentos could potenially result in a fatal reaction thus proving the myth? I believe that this idea is worthy of a possible re-visit of the myth in question, please let me know what you think. - RVDDP2501 15:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Highly doubtful. For one thing, the whole point to the reaction is that all the CO2 in the soda is forced into being released at once, and with less of a concentration of CO2, there is less reaction (as shown in Jamie's experiment of removing all the CO2 in the soda before dropping the Mentos in; no CO2, no violent reaction). The amount of soda consumed by the average person per sip would have substantially less CO2 than in a full soda bottle, and that CO2 would already start being released the moment it heads down your esophagus, meaning that there is less chance of a voilent reaction in your stomach from the combination than in a soda bottle.

Also, and this is most important, humans and most mammals have ways of releasing built-up gas in their digestive system, so any gas that would build up in your stomach would be forced out of one end or the other, preventing it from expanding to the point of bursting. So, no, there's little to no chance of this being a re-visit, since it's the same principle as the pop rocks and soda, and that's already been busted.66.233.188.87 01:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• • A late reply, but the MythBusters have now tested this. And as speculated above, for the very reasons stated by 66.233.188.87, the myth was Busted. —MarsJenkar (talk | contribs) 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia plagiarism in episode 59?

In episode 59, in the Water Safe section, the narrator's description of a thermal lance is a very close paraphrase of the first sentence of Wikipedia's own thermal lance article which has existed since at least 2004. --81.101.102.91 22:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, They didn't claim it as their original work. It's only plagiarism if you try to get people to beleive it's your original work. Besides, there's a limited number of ways you can phrase something simply and clearly. Then again maybe they did use Wikipedia as a source.(we do know that they use wikipedia) Did anyone look to see if it was credited at the end of the episode?--Marhawkman 07:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Adams stated Concerete Glider Glide Ratio is an Error! (Nov 8 Episode)

Adam states that his glider achieved a glide ratio of about 4 to 1, which is false. His calculations were 9ft of drop and 34 ft of travel, with no regard for speed. If you propelled a brick at 100 miles an hour, its going to travel a far distance before it lands on the ground, and by Adams calculations have a high glide ratio? Assuming Adam's glider was released at 20 miles/hour, which is what they were shooting for, a brick would have traveled a distance of 21.65ft. That leaves 34-22=12 feet. 12 feet of travel divided by 9 ft of drop, or a glide ratio of 1.3.Rewt241

Strange how you have a link to the glide ratio page, yet you have not seemed to read it. The ratio does not take into account how much better it is than a ballistic path, it is just the ratio of fall to run. Adam was right. Spejic 09:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And this is why they have "Myths revisted" episodes. Send 'em an email about it.--Marhawkman 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's on their forums. I tried to put this info on the main article, but was reverted. I just want to inform people that the conclusions reached by the show are false. And that it should not be stated as plausible, given the experiments and their results. Rewt241

what you put in to the main article didn't stay becuase it was biased to your oppion, not the "facts" of the Ep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Even I admit I have some questions about the whole thing. But it had to be the facts as stated in the show, so, it's 34 foot flight and a nose dive untill the show says otherwise.Metropod 03:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

include unaired season 4 episode?

Anyone got more info on this currently unaired episode? http://epguides.com/Mythbusters/ includes "Season 4 (..Episode #) 80. 4-26 UNAIRED Facts About Flatuence". tv.com's Mythbusters - Facts About Flatuence page says "Episode Number: 80" "This Episode will NOT be Aired in the US." --EarthFurst 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• sure... it's part of the show.--Marhawkman 12:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the myths aired as part of episode 48. Two others have shown up in an outtakes reel.-- Alanhwiki 06:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Steam Cannon - Conclusions are WRONG

How DOES one contact MythBusters to challenge their conclusion on the steam cannon??? They built their steam cannon incorrectly, which is why it doesn't work... several working steam cannons have been constructed between the 1930s and the present, using materials available in ancient times (which is why they claimed the myth was busted, as I recall).

First difference: the boiler needs to be VERY thick, to absorb as much heat as possible; the one on the show was far too thin. Second, very 'small' amounts of water are added via simple valve; this is a slow buildup of pressure, not the flash-explosion they were trying to produce in the show. Third, and this is the critical part: a "breaker bar" of wood is placed across the cannon's mouth, which holds in place a long wooden beam which travels loosely down the barrel. At the other end of this beam is the cannonball, wrapped in oiled cloth and butted tightly against a hole leading to the boiler chamber.

The idea is to SLOWLY build pressure in the chamber, until the pressure become so intense that the breaker bar gives way, simultaneously launching the beam like a spear and the cannonball right behind it, both with devastating effect. There's actually film from the '40s of this in action, and the ball goes a lonnnng way. I've seen a modern one that works also, using a bronze pressure chamber and a small simple valve to get the same results. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.187.162.166 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

First, this is totally the wrong place to bring this up. This is a discussion about the article listing Mythbuster conclusions, not a discussion about them. Second, you will hardly be the first person (or even the hundred and first) to bring up an issue like this. Try going to the Mythbuster forum on the Discovery Network web site. Spejic 08:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thermal Motion Sensor

Heat detectors (Fire protection) are not Motion Sensors. --Vihljun 10:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Grant, Tory and Kari never tested a fire proximity suit on the thermal motion sensor (not on camera at least), yet the season 4 page states that they do.

Stange link to Pig in Exploding Lighter section

There is a link to Pig called 'Human stand-in' in the section about the Exploding Lighter. I find this a strange link, as I don't see the connection between a pig and a human stand-in. Maybe a link to Guinea pig would be more appropriate, but I am not sure. Virtlink 15:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The object that was standing in for the human was an actual pig carcass. Spejic 18:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's something of a running joke on the show. They often refer to pig carcasses as "human analogues", since they're often used to measure how certain events would affect a human, especially when Buster, the Simulaids, or ballistics gel would not give an accurate picture. MarsJenkar (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Guns fired underwater

I replaced "cartridge" with "casing". As the even the Wikipedia article on Cartridge (Firearms) shows, the cartridge is what you call the whole unfired bullet, gunpowder and all. The part that gets ejected is the casing. — NRen2k5 15:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Secret ingredient for Exploding Pants

In their Exploding Pants episode, the Mythbusters try and keep the volatile ingredient secret. This, of course, is a tad naive since if their researchers could find it on the 'net, so can we. The substance is Sodium Chlorate, which can be found after googling a tad or looking at the sodium chlorate page here on the Wikipedia. Shouldn't we mention this interesting piece of information on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.112.69 (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, as that would be original research.--Drat (Talk) 03:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How about if we list http://aghist.metapress.com/content/q3224660874x8q51/ as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.112.69 (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed, sodium chlorate is already mentioned in the article.--Drat (Talk) 12:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen fuel cell

In the Wikipedia article it says, WRT hydrogen fuel cells:

"The cell didn't work with the car, and while the car did start unmodified when pure hydrogen was introduced, the hydrogen was also violently ignited soon afterwards, making it an unlikely, dangerous - and expensive - alternative."

I don't understand this, it reads like they tried to put hydrogen in a normal petrol/diesel car, a car fitted with a hydrogen fuel cell ought to run on hydrogen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.86.71 (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The "cell" in question was homemade, and the car was indeed a normal gasoline (petrol) car. The "cell" used electricity to split water (as in the old science experiment), and send the hydrogen to run the engine, which didn't work because it didn't produce nearly enough. —MarsJenkar (talk | contribs) 16:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Gunpowder engine

I changed the test to say that gunpowder actually has lower energy density than gasoline. Like most chemical explosives, gunpowder contains oxidizer and fuel (usually saltpeter and charcoal respectively). Gasoline on the other hand is just a fuel, and when used in engines it gets the oxidizer from air. As can be seen in the article energy density, gasoline has higher energy density than any form of coal. --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2008 (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) 15:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Whitest Teeth?

Episode 55 – "Steam Cannon" lists "Who has the whitest teeth" as a mini myth. This wasn't shown in the episode that I saw. Was this a region-only myth or is someone confusing the episodes? TheHYPO (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't even a mini-myth. It was just something the Mythbusters did out of curiosity and humor. I propose it be removed from this article. Spejic (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Episode 46: "citation needed"

"Jess Nelson would return as the MythTern in later episodes, while Mike Bushroe would also contribute in later episodes as a researcher[citation needed]."

Obviously the citation is not being requested for Jess Nelson, as she is clearly covered in the "Additional Cast Members" section.

I'm not sure why someone thought a citation was needed for Mike Bushroe, as he is mentioned by name in the closing credits of the eipsodes he contributed to, as well as being open about his subsequent role as a show researcher on the Discovery Mythbusters Forums as well as on other sites such as the Mythbusters Fan Club.

I don't remember specifically in which episodes' credits, other than "Airplane On A Conveyor Belt", his name can be found, but I'd certainly think that the actual television credits of the actual show itself should be a reliable enough source, by Wikipedia's standards, to confirm his invovement with the show's production.

I'd think the "citation needed" can safely be removed.

--216.138.230.98 (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is Mike Bushroe. I am not sure what level of documentation is needed to establish a credible citation for this.

Here is a link to a quote of an earlier post on the Myth Buster's Fan Forum in which I state that I am a researcher for the show: http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9801967776/m/67019748901?r=53419058901#53419058901 And here is my LinkedIn page which makes the same claim http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mike-bushroe/14/342/20 Mbushroe (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Broken link in cell phone/aircraft section

The link for the cell-phones-on-aircraft-ban being lifted in Europe is broken. Dmutters (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Dmutters (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Mind control? No way.

Myth statement	status	Notes
...a psionic helmet kit, ordered off the internet.	Busted	The test failed to produce any effects. Tori wore the helmet for two tests. The first was an attempt at a local coffee shop to give his order to the clerk without telling her, which failed (though the women behind him did receive the message he was trying to broadcast) (my emphasis). In the second attempt, he attempted to make Jamie remove his trademark beret, with no effect, while Jamie was filming the wrap-up for Facts About Flatulence. (Tori, in fact, is visible in the rear of the shot during that episode wearing the helmet.)

No way. That's probably vandalism. There's no way that, if the myth was 'busted,' some women actually had it work on them. Jwood (leave me a message) See what I'm up to 12:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The bit about the women was inserted with this edit. I'll watch the episode later to verify.--Drat (Talk) 13:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The two women in the cafe sitting behind Tory did claim that they received the message (happens at about 14:45), but since they weren't part of the experiment, and they might have just wanted to get on TV, their claim really can't be used in evaluating the results of the test. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I never took their claim seriously; it seemed pretty obvious they were just joking. Given the reactions of the hosts and narrator, it's pretty clear they knew it too. —MarsJenkar (talk | contribs) 19:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Colour contrast problems

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)