MythBusters results, question about bias

[tkingdoll]

It's television.

Anything you see at any time may be faked in order to get the shot required for the scripted outcome. That's how television works. There are no surprises in television any more. There's too much money involved to gamble it on unknown quantities. No-one wants to hear this about their favourite shows. UK viewers are slowly starting to find out just how true it is, though. If there's a certain ratio of busted to confirmed, it's planned that way, carefully, in advance.

 

[my_wan]

Nice responses Wowbagger...

 

[wahrheit]

I was about to write something very similar, but Teek beat me to it. The ratio between busted and confirmed myths is not a scientific or mathematical issue, it's the decision of the producers. It would be boring to have them bust every myth, it would be boring the other way round.

 

[CFLarsen]

Test results by season start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_1)

Excellent!

A more accurate statistic, derived from all available episodes:

There were a number of different other categories which I haven't included:

Busted (for now): 1
Busted (unofficially): 2
Busted with caveat: 1
Busted/Confirmed: 2
Busted/Plausible/Confirmed: 1
Busted/Plausible: 4
Inconclusive evidence towards confirmation: 1
Not tested/not practical: 1
Not tested: 1
Partly busted: 4
Partly confirmed: 4
Partly plausible: 4
Partly re-busted/partly confirmed: 1
Re-busted: 18
Re-confirmed: 1

The latter group shows the Mythbusters' unwillingness to shoehorn a result into a specific group.

With the ice the bullet, the myth doesn't specify the type of weapon - And as they discovered a regular gun heats too much

If it doesn't specify the type of weapon, it is difficult to test - just how many types of weapon should they have tested?

It may be a bit too much to re-visit the myth for a single type of weapon, but you can write in and ask, if you like.

With the troops on the bridge - they tested it on a suspension bridge. The first of which were seen in the West in the 19th century, though the only modern example of collapse was 1850 (Angers Bridge). It has been military doctrine since at least the middle ages. I think with a little effort, evidence could date back to the Roman era.

Wanna make that effort?

The mythbusters worked from the assumption of harmonics, when the real culprit for wooden bridges is stress from the weight distribution. A modern example of this was the Kansas City collapse - Although already dangerously overloaded due to an unintentional design flaw, the collapse was caused by the people on hanging bridge dancing in time with the music

If you are talking about the
Hyatt Regency walkway collapse, it was due to structural design, not people dancing.

 

[Molinaro]

I don't think it's right to read much into those percentages. The myths tested are not a random sample of existing myths.

It's the one's that are: physicaly possible to test, economicaly feasable to test, entertaining to watch, socialy acceptable with respect to vulgarity, crimminal acts, etc..

 

[technoextreme]

You either have overconfidence in modern experts, or you underestimate ancient ingenuity.

There are many cases of ancient engineering which were complete mysteries for hundreds of years and we only been able to shed light on them in recent times. Modern engineers don't think like ancient engineers. They think in terms of cranes, chains, and oil--not in terms of slave-power, hemp, and banana peels. If you handicap modern experts so that they have only the materials available to the ancients, you better believe they are going to be highly inept.

Guess what it's all governed by math my friend. It's all governed by math. No amount of ancient woo thinking that you are suggesting will change the fact that it's mathematically impossible. Remember mr woomeister they couldn't even get the chair off the ground with modern rockets. There are so many reasons why that it becomes an act of stupidity to still believe that it could have happened.

It's television.

Anything you see at any time may be faked in order to get the shot required for the scripted outcome. That's how television works. There are no surprises in television any more. There's too much money involved to gamble it on unknown quantities. No-one wants to hear this about their favourite shows. UK viewers are slowly starting to find out just how true it is, though. If there's a certain ratio of busted to confirmed, it's planned that way, carefully, in advance.

That's the most idiotic thing I've ever read. They don't plan these ratios. They do plan which myths they do but that is more because of the fact that as engineers you can't perform experiments that are impossible.

The mythbusters worked from the assumption of harmonics, when the real culprit for wooden bridges is stress from the weight distribution. A modern example of this was the Kansas City collapse - Although already dangerously overloaded due to an unintentional design flaw, the collapse was caused by the people on hanging bridge dancing in time with the music

That doesn't even make any sense. If it collapsed from weight distrubution then the bridge would collapse even if the soliders were out of cadence.

With the chicken story, I didn't see dishonesty - but a sense of lazyness. I saw a documentary a few years ago in which the RAF spent a fortune developing an anti-bird stike windscreen. When the test rig was ready to go, they hauled of to the local supermaket, bought frozen chickens out of the freezer - Fired them at the windscreens and destroyed every one of them. For the life of them they could not figure out how they had gotten the whole process so wrong - Finally they repeated the experiements with thawed chickens, and the new windscreens worked a complete treat

It wasn't lazyness it was stupidity. It was one of those rare times that they did not understand the physics.

 

[rocketdodger]

Because it doesn't change anything.

Even if you don't know anything about swordsmanship, or history, or physics, you should at least have used a knife to cut things in your life, at some point. And if so, even if you have the intellect of a cave man, you would figure out that slicing works much better than hacking.

Therefore I am kind of at a loss trying to understand your statement, technoextreme.

 

[TX50]

Wanna make that effort?

There is no ancient evidence that the Roman army marched in step at all,
so proving that they broke step when crossing bridges will be rather difficult.
Vegetius in book I of "Epitoma rei militari" mentions different lengths
of pace but doesn't say if they marched in step. Modern Roman soldier
reenactors merely assume that they marched in step.

 

[rocketdodger]

As to the katana slicing v chopping thing, I agree that in the tests I remember them doing (machine-gun barrel, another sword etc), simulating a biomechanically-delivered cut by a professional wouldn't have made any difference.

How do you figure?

 

[technoextreme]

Even if you don't know anything about swordsmanship, or history, or physics, you should at least have used a knife to cut things in your life, at some point.

Warning. Warning. Bad analogy alert. Bad analogy alert. Using your logic in comparing apples to oranges (Cutting a tomato to Cutting a sword with another sword) the mythbusters got it right. I don't do anything idiotic with the tomato. I take that knife and slice it straight down exactly how the mythbuster did it.

 

[Bikewer]

I post regularly on the Mythbusters bulletin board (same handle) as I have some background in ballistics, weaponry, archery, and so forth.
It's amazing how many people believe that a given "myth" (urban legends, for the most part) just MUST be true.

For instance,the "Robin Hood" arrow-splitting thing. The guys set up an initial test, and were quite unable to produce the desired results. Numbers of people familiar with period archery wrote in, pointing out that the equipment used was totally unlike what the real Mr. Hood (if he existed) might have used.
So, in a revisit, they produced replica period arrows (quite well done, actually) and tried everything again, and again had absolutely negative results.
Still, about twice a week, someone will post some reason why it just has to work....

Likewise with the "sword slicing the machine gun barrel" myth. We still get posts from people who just refuse to believe it didn't happen. If only they used a "real" period sword....(priceless heirlooms, for the most part)
We've had metallurgists and engineers on the board explaining in detail why this can't happen, but still....
I have even pointed out that the myth supersedes the Second World War. This came out of the Philippine Insurrection, around the turn of the century. (earliest I know of, at any rate) Moro tribesmen, wielding the traditional Kris, supposedly would cut through the barrels of GI M1903 Springfield rifles.
Nonsense, of course. It's just a propaganda device; the brave third-world soldier defeating the modern, technologically-advanced warrior. Or in the case of the Japanese, "traditional" martial arts defeating the craven Western powers.

 

[technoextreme]

(priceless heirlooms, for the most part)

Dude. Have you watched the show. They are willing to blow up anything. Didn't they destroy that old fashion rifle? Im not sure if it was true but they did call it an antique.

 

[rocketdodger]

Likewise with the "sword slicing the machine gun barrel" myth. We still get posts from people who just refuse to believe it didn't happen.
...snip...
Or in the case of the Japanese, "traditional" martial arts defeating the craven Western powers.

I am in no way making the claim that the myths are in fact true. I am simply stating that ignoring the contribution a slicing action makes to a blades ability to cut is a huge mistake -- in my opinion, it renders the entire experiment inapplicable.

If they really knew what they were doing, they would simply buy a top notch sword and get a top notch expert and tell him to try his hardest to cut another sword or slice off a rifle barrel. At least then, when the myth is busted, nobody can claim that they didn't try their hardest. As it is, they left way too much room for "what if they had done this, or that, etc." This is a complaint of mine in general with the show.

 

[CFLarsen]

There is no ancient evidence that the Roman army marched in step at all,
so proving that they broke step when crossing bridges will be rather difficult.
Vegetius in book I of "Epitoma rei militari" mentions different lengths
of pace but doesn't say if they marched in step. Modern Roman soldier
reenactors merely assume that they marched in step.

It looks better on film, yes.

 

[Big Les]

How do you figure?

As I say, I can't remember beyond the MG barrel and the other sword blade, exactly what they tested, but with those two test media, they showed that a straight chop caused damage, but nothing like enough to actually cut through the target. A slicing or draw-cut action would actually be less efficient in a metal-on-metal scenario. You're maintaining edge contact for longer, but applying the same energy over a longer period of time. Works well against flesh, living bone, and to a lesser extent fabric, but not metal.

But I'm no physicist. I'd be interested to know how a replicated slice could have improved their results and brought them anywhere near a "confirmed" or even "plausible" for those two tests. If you're thinking of other tests that I've forgotten about, remind me what they were.

 

[technoextreme]

If they really knew what they were doing, they would simply buy a top notch sword and get a top notch expert and tell him to try his hardest to cut another sword or slice off a rifle barrel. At least then, when the myth is busted, nobody can claim that they didn't try their hardest. As it is, they left way too much room for "what if they had done this, or that, etc." This is a complaint of mine in general with the show.

I'm assuming you wanted them to test the myth with a sword that some monk in walla walla woo folded a thousand times to make the ultimate sword of ultimate destiny. It's not necessary because technology supplanted the monk a long time ago. Stop attributing mythical properties to these dam swords. There is no difference in quality.

 

[tkingdoll]

That's the most idiotic thing I've ever read. They don't plan these ratios. They do plan which myths they do but that is more because of the fact that as engineers you can't perform experiments that are impossible.

Then you need to read more.

You know absolutely nothing about television whatsoever. The entire series is planned in advance, with a careful distribution of outcomes. I assure you. Television is never made with unknown quantities and it is planned to very careful patterns to ensure maximum retention of viewers. You think the show is live or something?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

For instance,the "Robin Hood" arrow-splitting thing. The guys set up an initial test, and were quite unable to produce the desired results. Numbers of people familiar with period archery wrote in, pointing out that the equipment used was totally unlike what the real Mr. Hood (if he existed) might have used.
So, in a revisit, they produced replica period arrows (quite well done, actually) and tried everything again, and again had absolutely negative results.
Still, about twice a week, someone will post some reason why it just has to work....

Gotta' love those Japenesse!!!

Split arrow

I suggest moving to about the 6 min. mark.

 

[Big Les]

I'm assuming you wanted them to test the myth with a sword that some monk in walla walla woo folded a thousand times to make the ultimate sword of ultimate destiny. It's not necessary because technology supplanted the monk a long time ago. Stop attributing mythical properties to these dam swords. There is no difference in quality.

No, he wants them to do what proper experimental archaeologists and historians do - use weapons and media as close to historical parameters as possible, to eliminate the chance of something happening that you haven't accounted for. Modern homogenous steel is very different in composition, and forging methods/heat treatments ideally would be considered too.

The thing is, in the context of a TV show, it's not necessary. The chances of an ancestral folded katana in the hands of a modern tameshigiri practitioner being even slightly better at cutting another weapon or a steel gun barrel are simply not worth the time, effort, money, and valuable screen-time. And you wouldn't want to do it anyway, as the antique nihonto would be trashed.

IOW, admirable sentiment, but not applicable in this context. It's a TV show - one with exceptionally high standards, but a TV show nonetheless.

 

[IMST]

Gotta' love those Japenesse!!!

Split arrow

I suggest moving to about the 6 min. mark.

and nothing in that video (which has been posted many, many times on the mythbusters forum) has anything to do with splitting an arrow. He shot an arrow into a narrow, empty tube. Kinda different than putting it through 18 inches of wood without turning.
Also, the subtitles look more Korean than Japanese, no?