Mythbuster Results

[barondave]

Many of my FList are fans of the PBS program Mythbusters, where a group of crazy engineers and former movie sfx people recreate and try to prove or disprove various myths. Here is a website with the Mythbuster Results into the fifth season. Some selected myths:

You stay drier running in the rain than walking.
confirmed*
When originally tested, the faster you run the wetter you get.
*The original result was "busted," but when revisted in episode 38 it was changed to "confirmed."

Cola is able to clean chrome.
confirmed
It surprisingly cleaned the chrome better than the commercial chrome polish used for comparison.

A duck's quack does not echo.
busted
When examined by an audio-expert, it was found that the echo was "swallowed" by the original quack, due to the very similar acoustic structure between the quack and the echo. Because of this, it may be difficult to tell where the quack ends and the echo begins.

Toast is more likely to land buttered side-down when dropped.
busted
In an extensive and highly objective test the toast showed no statistical preference for landing buttered side-down or up when dropped. It was an even 50-50 split when the final results were compared. However, when pushed off the side of a table, toast showed preference to flip once and land buttered side down.

Comments

[bibliofile.livejournal.com]

> running in the rain
I remember the original test but missed the retest. Blaming it on the artificial rain? Hmm.

[asimovberlioz.livejournal.com]

A duck's quack does not echo.
busted

Take that, L.M. Boyd and your silly newspaper column!

[calimac.livejournal.com]

Nothing like a sufficiency of testing.

I have read that disbelievers in the correct answer to the Monty Hall Problem have been convinced by running test cases: given the preconditions (esepcially that Monty always opens a door), it does indeed make sense to switch.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

On a sheer mathematical basis, yes. but the situation is different in Real Life (tm) where Monty Hall is gaming the system. Personally, I wouldn't switch on the show just because I'd feel stupider changing from the right choice than failing to switch to a greater prize. I could always claim that I was "resolute", which goes over real well in some circles.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

In real life, Monty Hall never opened a door this way.

But let's say he did. It only works if he always opens a door. Otherwise he could indeed game the system. (So would moving the prizes around, behind the scenes, between doors while all this is going on.) And switching, in a 3-door game, even given the full scenario, only increases your chances of winning from 1/3 to 2/3, which means that a lot of time you'll still be wrong no matter what you do.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

He has admitted (not that I'm going to look it up) that he knows which door has the prize and tries to egg on the contestant for tv purposes. If the grand prize was just won, it's expensive for the show if too much prize money is spent and also not so good for ratings if people win a lot. Meanwhile, if it's been a while with no winners, it's best to push a good prize vs. a great prize (kitchenette vs. car) just to get the audience clapping. This is what I mean by gaming the system.

To put it more bluntly: I don't trust Monty Hall. Grrr.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

Looking at the web site, I see that only a single trial was made for some dicey propositions for which there were possible variables. So for those they should not say "Busted" as in "it cannot happen," but only that it did not happen on this occasion.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

You should watch the show. They never (or rarely) to a single trial. It's usually a series. They did the toast test a bunch of times, in different situations. They ran two trucks into a VW several times, though only one test worked to the specs. They may not be the last word, but they're more authoritative than a foaf.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking of things like this:

"When you go to get blood drawn at the Red Cross, you are actually secretly having mind controlling microchips implanted into your bloodstream that can be detected with a stud finder.

busted

While a stud finder can find microchips (like those used to track pets) embedded in flesh, none were found after a trip to the Red Cross."

First off, while maybe they can find microchips with a stud finder, I can't even find studs with a stud finder, so the assurance in the second part of the myth is unreliable.

Second, =A= trip to the Red Cross? Proves nothing except that it doesn't always happen.

I don't believe the myth at all, but this doesn't disprove it.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

It's hard to disprove a negative. Your proof requires that all trips to the Red Cross be tested to a high degree of microchip finding. With all due respect, they're better with a stud finder than you are. Remember, these aren't just your average everyday implanted chips so WalMart can automatically deduct your purchase as you leave. No, these are mindcontrol chips, which have to do, er, something unspecified but powerful to get you to, um, Do The Master's Bidding. These cannot be passive.

I agree that one trip to the Red Cross isn't a full-spectrum analysis, but the Urban Legend is that every trip results in such an implantation so you should never go. Therefore, one example shoots down at least a large part of the paranoia.

Taking the other side, I might argue that this proves that the chips are so powerful that they would cause the Mythbusters to falsify results. That, I'm afraid, is a test for Mythbusting Mythbusters, a potential show on Fox hosted by Bill O'Reilly.

Someone get me a hammer!

[mle292.livejournal.com]

The last one, the theory about 'butter side down' toast was effectively proved on Newton's apple many years before, but it was jam and not butter.

Because the height of an average counter is just about perfect for jam-laden-bread to rotate 180 degrees, it almost always works out. If one were to build household countertops at about eight feet high, jam-laden-bread would rotate 360 degrees and then land jam side up.

Re: Someone get me a hammer!

[bchbum-98.livejournal.com]

When toast is buttered on one side, isn't the center of gravity moved toward that side? It seems likely that in many trials from various heights, the buttered side hitting the floor would be favored.