Has anyone ever submitted an idea/myth?

I have a couple, tell me what you think. I'm a fan of the show but doubt I've seen every episode. I did a search on their site and didn't see either one of my ideas.

First, "Static Explosion"..now we have all read that little sticker on the gas pump that says "do not re-enter vehicle while fueling, risk of static electricity may cause explosion." Now while I'm sure its possible, I have never heard of it happening. I have seen many people open their car doors while fueling and not one fire. So what factors play in? Season? (dryer in winter) type of car? clothing and footwear? maybe the surface (concrete, asphalt, gravel). empty tank or topping off?

Just what conditions are needed for a Static Explosion?

Second, now this isn't really a myth but one of those "what if's", "Rifle Watertower". What would happen if you shot a watertower with a high powered rifle? Would it even penetrate the steel? Would it just make a hole with a small leak? Would it make a hole and the water pressure behind it shoot out a high pressure stream? Would the hole weaken the steel enough to cause a huge split in the tower flooding out towns people and villagers?

Just what would happen?



http://mythbusters-wiki.dis...ncyclopedia+of+Myths

static explosion mmm...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XPQLbQwCF6Q

like this?

I would like for them to do the airplane and the opposing conveyor one.

If an Airplane is on a runway that was a conveyor belt and it matched the speed of the aircraft wheels, would the aircraft still take off?

I'm sure they can do this with a model airplane. Then get an old airplane from the boneyard and try it and then blow it up.

ha! ya just like that!

so i guess the build up is in the cloth seats and when she touched the pump handle it created the fire?

i like how she left the pump on the ground still burning.

they acualy did that in one of thier first epesode (sp). it was the gas pump cell phone mythe. they took silk underwear and a piece of pvc, rubbed together and got static. it was for the younger people that fueled up there car.cause they have a tendency (again sp) to sit down get out of the car after rubbing around on the seat and not touching any metal to ground themselves out. once they get to the handle to turn it off it will spark and light the vapors that are coming out of your tank. cause it is not the liguid that is flamible but the vapors.

if they want even more static try using fleece i have a fleece swteshirt and its tearrible in the winter especily getting out of the fiero

quote Originally posted by Wichita: I would like for them to do the airplane and the opposing conveyor one. If an Airplane is on a runway that was a conveyor belt and it matched the speed of the aircraft wheels, would the aircraft still take off? I'm sure they can do this with a model airplane. Then get an old airplane from the boneyard and try it and then blow it up.

No, it wouldn't. What lifts the plane is the air movement over the wings. On a conveyor like that, there would be no air movement, thus, no lift, thus no takeoff.

Max

quote Originally posted by Max The Chainsaw: No, it wouldn't. What lifts the plane is the air movement over the wings. On a conveyor like that, there would be no air movement, thus, no lift, thus no takeoff. Max

Yes it would, we've had this thread already, check in the archives. But an airplane doesn't derive it's forward motion through driving the wheels. It derives it's forward motion through reactions with the air. So your answer is based on a false premise. The airplane would still move forward and eventually take off.

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: Yes it would, we've had this thread already, check in the archives. But an airplane doesn't derive it's forward motion through driving the wheels. It derives it's forward motion through reactions with the air. So your answer is based on a false premise. The airplane would still move forward and eventually take off.

if this is true, then we don't need all those long runways, just really good conveyors which would leave more space to put houses by the airports.

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: Yes it would, we've had this thread already, check in the archives. But an airplane doesn't derive it's forward motion through driving the wheels. It derives it's forward motion through reactions with the air. So your answer is based on a false premise. The airplane would still move forward and eventually take off.

Thanks, AK. Thank goodness for Canadians. Our schools must SUCK!

quote Originally posted by wanobi: if this is true, then we don't need all those long runways, just really good conveyors which would leave more space to put houses by the airports.

Oh no... Not that again.

I will not get sucked into this discussion. I will not get sucked into this discussion. I will not get sucked into...

quote Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: Oh no... Not that again.

My my, look what I found.

quote Originally posted by nibotolu: static explosion mmm... http://youtube.com/watch?v=XPQLbQwCF6Q like this?

I was going to post the same vid.

Patrick, That was pure evil, dragging that thread kicking and screaming from under its rock.

I hate Mythbusters, they destroy too many of my favorite cars, like I saw them destroy my favorite Chevy (besides the C1 and C2 Vettes) a 1967 Chevy Caprice, THE BEST YEAR (I prefer the 67 Impala though)

quote Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: Oh no... Not that again. I will not get sucked into this discussion. I will not get sucked into this discussion. I will not get sucked into...

Thank you for that, I giggled like a little girl for ten minutes after reading that.

------------------
Ron

Never, never do anything or wear things that you don't want to have to explain to Paramedics, it can get very embarrassing. They talk!

I was going to write them about all of the Fiero myths but the last thing we need is a bunch of burning Fieros on tv.

quote Originally posted by wanobi: if this is true, then we don't need all those long runways, just really good conveyors which would leave more space to put houses by the airports.

You are either speaking in jest, or misunderstood what I posted.

Never specified the length of the conveyor, it would need to be a similar length to the existing runways. I could whip out roll-out calculations for you, but I don't have a POH handy, they're all back in Canada.

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: You are either speaking in jest, or misunderstood what I posted. Never specified the length of the conveyor, it would need to be a similar length to the existing runways. I could whip out roll-out calculations for you, but I don't have a POH handy, they're all back in Canada.

just my little stab at humor. but I am curious why the conveyor would have to be very much longer than the plane?

Because the plane will move forward reguardless of which way the wheels ar rotating.

lmao! you actually had an 11 page argument over this? hell no, it won't take off.

.

Edited my first answer because I was able to get out of the office and think with a clear head. Work has a habit of acting like an industrial strength IQ sucker. Ultimately, the plane would take off but the wheels would be spinning waaaaay faster than at normal take off speed. The landing gear would most likely catch fire and burn up the plane. So now the next question would be where to burry the survivors of the crash.

[This message has been edited by whadeduck (edited 11-16-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Gendo3: lmao! you actually had an 11 page argument over this? hell no, it won't take off.

this is too funny.... and yes the plane would take off... I'll explain if you still dont think so.. I hope all who said it wouldnt were joking..

[This message has been edited by AJ7 (edited 11-16-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Gendo3: lmao! you actually had an 11 page argument over this? hell no, it won't take off.

Can you explain to me physically why it won't? What you have to understand is that the wheels of an airplane are uncoupled from the airframe. It's a (strangely) common misconception that an airplane is driven on the ground like a car, i.e. the power is going to the wheels. And since you're so good in physics, here's another one for you.

I have a glider attached to a long rope (say 1000ft) and the wind is blowing rather strongly (say 60-70mph). Will the glider be able to fly without application of external force?

quote Originally posted by Gendo3: lmao! you actually had an 11 page argument over this? hell no, it won't take off.

OMG, another one. Oh well, I'll just sit back and watch this time.

I'm sorry Gendo no flame intended. I've seen this before.

------------------
Ron

It's the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us the freedom of the press.
It's the Soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us the freedom of speech.
It's the Soldier, not the politicians
That ensures our right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
It's the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag.

somehow this isn't the way i pictured this thread going.

quote Originally posted by sostock: somehow this isn't the way i pictured this thread going.

I agree.
A friend was reciently in the hospital. She was hooked up to an IV bottle/sack. When they changed the IV, there was a lot of air in the tubing. WTF?
The IV person said this is normal.
.
How many ' Who Dun It ' stories depended on a badie killing someone in the hospital by injecting air into someone's IV?
.
OK probably not a show for Myth Busters would want to test.

------------------
Ol' Paint, 88 Base coupe auto.
Turning white on top, like owner.
Leaks a little, like owner.
Doesn't smoke, unlike owner

quote Originally posted by whadeduck: . Edited my first answer because I was able to get out of the office and think with a clear head. Work has a habit of acting like an industrial strength IQ sucker. Ultimately, the plane would take off but the wheels would be spinning waaaaay faster than at normal take off speed. The landing gear would most likely catch fire and burn up the plane. So now the next question would be where to burry the survivors of the crash.

100% agree... remember the engines are on the wings not the wheels!!!

quote Originally posted by fierodog: Now for the purpose of the thread I love the show. But I see it as some things they are just not alowed to confirm even though it may work. I would like them to look at some more of Tesla's theory and maybe take a spin into the health issue of ,The cancer research of Royal Raymond Rife. Both of these men were genuises way ahead of their time. Rife work with his microscope tech is still better than what they use today IMO anyway.

LIke their 'proof' Teslsa's resonance machine wont work by testing it on a *modern* bridge that is designed NOT to have a single resonance frequency. Engeineers have learnd a few things since teslas days, and what would have been effective then isnt now. Being a Tesla fan i wanted to toss something at my tv.

Far too often they do bad science and make fools of themselves if you know the truth, but its all about making entertaining tv and getting ratings, not about hard science.

lol yup this is the exact episode I was talking about they made that one bar shake like heck. I'd say that was confirmed. Then they made that retarded scale model of the building now I'm not in constuction but I'm sure they didn't built buildings out of boxed steel, on top of that they used regular spot welds to assemble it so are the welds to scale with everything else....um no I also know they didn't use particle boards for the floors. There is another episode that didn't impress me much. When they tried building a hydrogen power car with electrolosis of water. Now they ran the car on pure hydrogen to see if it would even run and it did. Then made this reactor that looked nice but when they said they turned it on it didn't even make any bubbles so they did not even pay attention to that and hooked it up to the car. No bubbles = no hydrogen is being released duh.. My 6 year old son would of saw that! And trust me you apply current to plates or rods in water and you will get bubbles. ok I think I'm done with my rant.

[This message has been edited by fierodog (edited 11-17-2007).]

quote Originally posted by fierodog: There is another episode that didn't impress me much. When they tried building a hydrogen power car with electrolosis of water. Now they ran the car on pure hydrogen to see if it would even run and it did. Then made this reactor that looked nice but when they said they turned it on it didn't even make any bubbles so they did not even pay attention to that and hooked it up to the car. No bubbles = no hydrogen is being released duh.. My 6 year old son would of saw that! And trust me you apply current to plates or rods in water and you will get bubbles. ok I think I'm done with my rant.

thats the one I hated.. They never even messed with it after one try with no bubbles, and they are supposed to know these things... most kids in highschool have learned that.. ofcourse no, it will not run JUST on the hydrogen. but it will give you better mpg... I have one in my car now (looks like a white cloud in the water then a hissing noise coming out of the water as soon as you turn the switch). ofcourse, I didnt pay $100+ or whatever it is for those things.. lol cost me about $50 from scratch.

The one I've always kind of wondered about is an modification of one they've already done. Tailgate up or down? Which one gets better gas milage? They determined that, with the tailgate up, an air bubble was formed in the bed of the truck allowing other air to flow over the bed and tailgate. The tailgate down actually created drag and made the gas milage worse. What about the use of a toolbox in the back of the truck? How does this effect the aerodynamics. I thought it'd be interesting to know because so many pickups have a bed-mounted tool box. Does the air bubble just end up getting moved rearward?

------------------
Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck
'87 GT Auto
'88 Ferrario
'84 Indy

quote Originally posted by AJ7: thats the one I hated.. They never even messed with it after one try with no bubbles, and they are supposed to know these things... most kids in highschool have learned that.. ofcourse no, it will not run JUST on the hydrogen. but it will give you better mpg... I have one in my car now (looks like a white cloud in the water then a hissing noise coming out of the water as soon as you turn the switch). ofcourse, I didnt pay $100+ or whatever it is for those things.. lol cost me about $50 from scratch.

Got any numbers on what you are getting, and some pictures?

Engines will run on just Hydrogen, but not generating its own H2. That would be approaching the 'over unity' nut crowd.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Got any numbers on what you are getting, and some pictures? Engines will run on just Hydrogen, but not generating its own H2. That would be approaching the 'over unity' nut crowd.

I was meaning it wouldnt produce enough the way I'm doing it, without some things added into it and set up right. ( I know people working on that..) I havent gotten any numbers, I wont have great numbers anyway, my car that I'm using it on got 14.9mpg last I checked before the hydrogen was working. so it may be a couple mpg difference...I'll have to check it next time I fill up. and there isnt much for pics.. its already together and all you see is a 4" PVC pipe with 2 ends and wires and hoses coming out I could still get some though if you want.

quote Originally posted by AJ7: I was meaning it wouldnt produce enough the way I'm doing it, without some things added into it and set up right. ( I know people working on that..) I havent gotten any numbers, I wont have great numbers anyway, my car that I'm using it on got 14.9mpg last I checked before the hydrogen was working. so it may be a couple mpg difference...I'll have to check it next time I fill up. and there isnt much for pics.. its already together and all you see is a 4" PVC pipe with 2 ends and wires and hoses coming out I could still get some though if you want.

Ah, i misunderstood the point you were making, sorry about that

Sure, id be interested in what its doing for you and any details on the actual cell. ( you can PM me if you want, or start another thread since its a bit OT for here )

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Ah, i misunderstood the point you were making, sorry about that Sure, id be interested in what its doing for you and any details on the actual cell. ( you can PM me if you want, or start another thread since its a bit OT for here )

Me and my brother were working on a full cell of this type of design. He thought of one way of using rods and I like plates for the surface area. It defineitly produced hydrogen lol my brother was lighting the bubble when they came to surface and they would crack like M80's pretty cool.


I was also thinking about the tesla earthquake machine again. I think they also did not take another important veriable into account, the stoke of the devise they use along with the frequency because the .25 stroke of the air tool was nothing of that of the coil contraption they were using.

well what about if a targa top really gets worse gas milage than a fastback?

[This message has been edited by kyp (edited 11-19-2007).]