MythBuster Developing Light-Weight Vehicle Armor 308
gearystwatcher writes "MythBusters' Jamie Hyneman has been developing blast-resistant, light-weight armor for use on US military vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan based on his work with show co-host Adam Savage. 'We had a lot of experience in the show dealing with explosives, obviously in ways and situations that are outside the norm. This is very revealing, because when you see something outside the norm you get to see what the boundaries of the phenomenon are,' Hyneman tells The Reg during an interview for the new MythBusters' season."
To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters (Score:5, Insightful)
These always seem to pop up on any Mythbusters thread. No, they're not scientists. They're not pretending to be scientists. And nope, they don't have time to spend years with a research team adjusting for every variable in every experiment in some carefully controlled lab somewhere.
What they *are* are very knowledgeable laymen, applying basic scientific methodology to fairly straight-foward questions in an entertaining fashion. They bring the basics of scientific testing to the masses. They teach concepts such as skepticism and empiricism to a population that too often relies on hearsay and superstition in their beliefs about the physical world.
No, they're not scientists. But that doesn't mean they have nothing to teach or that there is no value in their experiments. As the Wright Brothers and Thomas Edison could probably attest, sometimes even a layman has insight to offer.
Re: (Score:3)
At most, I'd call them Engineers. But, yeah, NO, they're not posing as Scientists. And you'd be right (Must not go for the nasty pun...must not go for the nasty pun...) as you mentioned with the Wrights and Edison.
Re: (Score:3)
Adam's bio on twitter "I play a scientist on TV". And i think he is right. He plays a scientist.
http://twitter.com/#!/donttrythis [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I think it'd be safe to say that the quality of work they produce is often equivalent to what your average scientific team produces *before* it goes through the peer-review process.
The TV show is not the equivalent of a journal publishing results, but of the team submitting to a journal. The Mythbuster Forums are the closest thing they have to peer-review. They then often "resubmit" to the journal to address the criticisms.
It's not a perfect analogy, but it's not too far off. A team of "not on TV" scient
Re: (Score:2)
Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters (Score:5, Informative)
Agreed, although funny enough, neither of them are "trained" Engineers.
Jamie has a degree in Russian linguistics and Adam is an acting college dropout. Although they have more lay person building skills than I could ever hope to have. Screw you high school guidance counselor that refused to let me take Welding since I was "college bound"
The rest of the cast:
Grant has a BSEE.
Kari is a sculpting artist.
Tory just started out as a stage manager running errands and just worked his way up the ranks.
------
*There are a few old guys from my company that started out from the bottom. Starting at the loading bay and some how ending up as master engineer despite having no degree what so ever. It's really rare any more, but it does still happen. Not everyone has the chance or opportunity to go to college to be an engineer.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, what makes it even more ridiculous is he is supposedly a grown adult now and nothing is stopping him from either taking a welding class at a community college, or simply buying a cheap welder and a book and getting busy learning.
There is no reason to blame anyone other then himself for not learning to weld. You can be set up with a cheap rig and all the crap you need to learn for less then 500 bucks- cheaper if you look for deals and you won't need to spend it all at once. It can get more expensive if
Re: (Score:3)
Go back to your toilet, Wolowitz.
(http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Howard_Wolowitz)
Re: (Score:2)
They often rely on the scientific method (predict, experiment, observe, repeat) and are very pleased when the outcome is not what they predicted up front. Why not call them scientists? IMHO, scientist or engineer is a false dichotomy.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny.
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot the obligatory xkcd [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand that even their methods are not up to the standards of science publication, but even we do try out things in the beginning in a way not too dissimilar to the Mythbuster way (ie not statistically significant, using some mock-up equipment, or whatever) before we fully commit to an experiment or before we purchase the proper equipment that would cost $50,000 or something. So yeah, the Mythbuster show is pretty scientific.
No way! (Score:5, Funny)
Next I bet you're going to tell me that Scientologists aren't scientists!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be more inclined to call them engineers. Yes, they do experiments, as that's kinda the point of the show, but if you examine their skill sets and techniques, it's pretty obvious what we'd call them if they applied those skills to another field. They make blueprints, run computer simulations, build small scale prototypes, build large scale tests, etc. In particular the "keep at it til something breaks/blows up" approach is engineer thinking.
So, they're Hollywood SFX guys putting engineering skills to work testing popular science. The fact they're sneaking lessons about control groups and repeatable results into what is ostensibly an entertainment show is an added bonus. The purists who shout "it's not REAL science" are just setting up a "no true Scotsman" argument, since while "science" has a clear meaning "REAL science" does not.
Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters (Score:5, Insightful)
They use the scientific method to prove or disprove hypotheses. So yeah, they're real scientists, they're just not academics.
Re: (Score:3)
See, I think the way some people react to the idea ("no, they're scientists, not engineers") suggest that they think engineering is somehow more vulgar than science.
I'd call them engineers first and foremost, and call it label of respect. They're also non-academic scientists, since the "scientist" label simply means "someone who does scientific research" but engineering is clearly their focus.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say "scientist" is "someone who follows the scientific method" but that's just me.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say "follows the scientific method" is assumed in "does scientific research"... since, by definition, not doing the former precludes doing the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, I'd include "someone who does scientific research" under "someone who follows the scientific method". You can't call it "scientific" research if you aren't following the scientific method after all. So I'd agree with you, but point out that my criteria implicitly included yours.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They use the scientific method to prove or disprove hypotheses. So yeah, they're real scientists, they're just not academics.
If they were 'real scientists', they'd do more research, and more rigorous testing. Sure, they use some science, but so did the first agriculturalists who determined that x days after the shortest day in the year, in their region, was a safe time to plant crops. A 'real scientist' would have figured out what the minimum soil temperature had to be before seeds could germinate, and how much sun per day was needed, and could use that to give you the optimum time this spring for when to plant a given seed.
I'l
Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters (Score:5, Interesting)
In virtually every experiment I've seen, they're eyeballing where the light is being reflected
Yes, just as the soldiers in ancient Greece would have done. Part of the criteria of that experiment that they made clear from the get-go was that it had to work in the real world, using materials and resources available to Archimedes, and be executed in a realistic fashion. They've had two follow-up episodes now where they've given critics a chance to prove themselves (including the MIT students who so ardently claimed they could do it) and none have been able to replicate this supposed accomplishment in anything resembling real world conditions.
People hold on to the Archimedes myth because they WANT to believe it, not because it really happened. That's exactly the kind of quasi-religious belief that REAL scientists are supposed to question, not accept blindly (as so many Mythbusters critics seem to).
Re: (Score:2)
They use something that kinda looks like the scientific method - when it doesn't get in the way of making a big boom or doesn't interfere with the entertainment value. When it does, even that fig leaf goes overboard.
No, they're not real scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
Are QA Engineers scientists, too? These people design and run tests based on scientific principles every day. But they never publish in scientific journals and their titles use the word "engineer" not "scientist."
Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters (Score:5, Insightful)
most of the time their results are wrong
That's a bold proclamation for someone who offers no countervailing experiments of his own. From what I've seen, *most* of the time the questions they answer are pretty straightforward. "Can you build a lead balloon?" Why yes, you can (which they demonstrated by actually doing it--pretty compelling evidence methinks). And, what's more, they have consistently shown themselves to be open to criticism (as I said in another post, way more open than many "real" scientists I've known). Some of their follow-up episodes are legendary (such was when they invited a group of critical MIT students out in an attempt to recreate Archimedes' legendary "death ray"), and many have resulted in reversals of their original conclusions.
So, why don't you enlighten us with some specifics to back up your blanket generalizations? Or were you just reflexively talking out of your ass?
Re: (Score:2)
To prove something doesn't work, you have to do it more than once and do it in more than one way.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the burden of proof is on the person who asserts that something DOES work--not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
They often state that they do use other methods to prove the hypothesis, it just doesn't make it on air. They only have an hour to fit in what could be weeks or months of scientific study while keeping it entertaining to boot. Who really wants to watch them repeat the same experiment 1000 times over?
Re: (Score:3)
What annoys me most is the "If we can't do it, noone can" attitude.
I remember one myth (some details might be slightly wrong here, been a while since I saw it) where a stewardess survived a plane crash by sitting strapped into her seat in the tailpart of the plane. They tried to reproduce it, failed, and then had to label it "plausible", because, well.. After some research, they found out it did actually happen, and was well documented. Before they found that, it was clearly in the "busted" bin.
What does th
Re: (Score:2)
What annoys me most is the "If we can't do it, noone can" attitude.
But that's the premise of the show. It's not Mythinvestigators. The whole model is them exploring a myth, replicating the event, and making a declaration. The show wouldn't work if all their results were "plausible".
Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of those things you will never be able to prove or disprove. The stewardess in the back of the airplane one is one of those things where if you crash a 1000 planes in those situations maybe 1 stewardess will actually survive. In academics, people don't have that type of grant money to actually crash planes. They'll crash 3 planes on a pilot grant, publish it, put in a grant request and get more grant money to crash 20 maybe 50 planes and interpolate a result out of that. Statistically it's improbable with a 99.9% chance of dying, anecdotally it has happened before but you can't really put real people through these experiments, you have to have crash dummies and shock recorders that have much lower limits on what it means to die than an exceptional human body.
What MythBusters does to me (I do actually work in the scientific field and I am involved in the process of grant writing) is pilot studies based on anecdotal evidence. If you want to do real studies you should get your PhD, apply for a grant and work in academics but I warn you: it's boring, nobody will ever read your findings, studies, papers or ideas except maybe for the editor of a scientific paper (and even then, many don't read past the first page) unless it's earth shattering and you will definitely NEVER appear on TV doing your experiments, at most you'll give a soundbite to journalists who will misinterpret it anyway in their news report.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have never once seen them act with such arrogance. A mainstay of the show almost from the beginning has been their follow-up shows and their general willingness to not only tolerate, but openly encourage, their critics. I have rarely seen any real world scientists that were as quick to admit their mistakes and reverse their conclusions as Jaime and Adam. In fact, they seem to take a kind of joy in being proven wrong (or when they initial hypothesis is wrong, and the experiment surprises them).
Re: (Score:3)
As someone who has little patience for most tv shows, I have to say you're quite hypersensitive if you're that bothered by Mythbusters. The experiments may be flawed but I don't ever recall seeing one that wasn't close enough to provide a satisfactory conclusion. And anyway, for me, the most entertaining aspect of the show is how ingenious and efficient they are with the builds that allow them to perform those experiments.
Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters (Score:5, Insightful)
Except most of the time their results are wrong.
Science is falsifiable. Science can get something wrong.
What happens when someone comes by later and proves it wrong? Get this: That's also science.
Science is not about getting everything right the first time. Methods can be improved later with more knowledge or experience. Heck, there was a time way back when when "science" understood there were exactly four elements (earth, water, fire, air)*. That was wrong. Then knowledge improved. Some of the most brilliant minds in scientific history have come up with theories and models that were accepted as fact back in the day. There was a time the "plum pudding" model of an atom stood up as THE model of an atom. That was wrong. Then knowledge improved. There was a time the Bohr model of an atom stood up as THE model of an atom. That was wrong. Then knowledge improved.
Science is knowledge. Science is testable knowledge. The Mythbusters run their tests to the best of their abilities, resources, and experience. Sometimes they get things wrong. Science is falsifiable, testable knowledge. The Mythbusters are open to criticism and challenges to their results and testing methods. Challenge them sometime.
The only thing they don't have are science doctorates and journal-published papers. And that's not a part of science.
*: Yes, smart guy, I just mean western science.
MOD UP (Score:2)
most insightful post of the week IMO! *thumbs up*
Re: (Score:3)
As full evidence of falsifiable tests and sciencey goodness, the Mythbusters made a car with golf ball dimples to prove that giant golf ball dimples won't improve car mileage. This experiment promptly demonstrated a fairly large improvement in cruising mileage by putting large golf ball dimples on a car. That's science! (and cool too.)
Re: (Score:2)
Except most of the time their results are wrong. I have seen them perform so many flawed experiments that I no longer watch that show.
Which is why you will always be a worker drone.
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic, there are no engineers. Anywhere. Ever. Every engineer is an applied scientist.
I think you need to reexamine the way you use those terms. Using the word "scientist" instead of the word "engineer" to describe someone who does engineering, simply because what they're doing is applied science, doesn't leave a single person on the planet who can legitimately be called an engineer. Well, except for a few cases where a job title includes the work "engineer" to make it sound more complex than i
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And they're so often wrong.
Forgive me, but I'm going to take the word of the Royal Goddamned Navy on the grevious effect of massive oak splinters, and not a few stuntmen on cable TV.
Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and they frequently do follow-up shows when people dispute their results (some of which have resulted in them reversing their initial conclusions). They're way more open to criticism than many of the "real" scientists I've known.
Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They're way more open to criticism than many of the "real" scientists I've known.
A consensus of Death Ray episodes agrees that Archimedes's Death Ray leads to substantial heating, but not ignition (solar thermal generation plants, not withstanding).
Re: (Score:3)
The greatest phrase in science, the phrase that most often proceeds revolutionary breakthroughs, is not "Eureka!" but "Huh... that's odd...."
Re: (Score:3)
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
Thomas Edison
Re: (Score:3)
In a lot of ways, a big part of their message is that you can do science without being some nerdy guy in a lab coat and goggles. Watching them feels a lot like watching that crazy high school science teacher who would have their students build bottle rockets or potato cannons.
And of course their show is all built around the basics of the scientific method, even if it never makes it explicit:
1. Myth = Hypothesis
2. Experiment to try to replicate the hypothesis.
3. If it fails, do another experiment to see what
Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters (Score:5, Insightful)
"Failure is always an option," and they learn fromt hem, too.
Re: (Score:3)
And again, randall munroe has summarized your post into a comic [xkcd.com].
Re: (Score:2)
As usual (Score:5, Insightful)
XKCD does a good job summing it up: http://xkcd.com/397/ [xkcd.com].
While careful controlled tests are important to science and critical to many discoveries, that is not the core of what science is. The core is that ideas are tested by experiment. It is the process of saying "Hmmm, maybe X causes Y, let's try it and find out!"
That's the basis of what they do, and the basis of science. The higher level of rigor are important as well, but they aren't the main thing. Scientific thinking and action in every day life does not mean doing a laboratory based double blind study of every little thing. You'd never make it to work if you did that for everything. It does mean holding your idea up to scrutiny and testing them out. Mythbusters helps promote that.
Also as a side note they are often more rigorous than it appears. If you've watched some outtakes/behind the scenes stuff it turns out that they often do more testing than you see on screen. Again that's not to say they do everything grade-A lab proper, but it can be more than it appears.
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, this is about inventing, which is different than being either a scientist or an engineer. It doesn't matter how it works, if you know why it works, or even if you know the specific limits. It just matters that it does work.
Afterwards, the engineers can descend upon it and find the limits (and probably improve them), the scientists can descend and figure out why it works (and thus apply it to other aspects of life). The inventor only cares that it does the task he or she sees that needs to be ad
Re:As usual (Score:4, Insightful)
The rigor also is only useful for negative results. For positive results, rigor is unnecessary; if you aim to prove that something is possible, and you can make it happen, then it's possible.
The lead balloon is a good example. The myth was that a lead balloon is an impossibility. They built a working lead balloon. Therefore, lead balloons are possible.
Now, if they had set out to prove that something is possible, and failed to do so, that does not necessarily mean that it's impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
The rigor also is only useful for negative results. For positive results, rigor is unnecessary; if you aim to prove that something is possible, and you can make it happen, then it's possible.
2 words: Cold Fusion
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that would be a more appropriate question for all the "They're not REAL scientists" critics, since they seem to have such a handle on what a REAL scientist is. I can only presume they mean a person with a Ph.D. in a classical science field (chemistry, biology, etc.) actively working in their field.
Re: (Score:2)
An appropriate title would be "engineer" - and no, I don't mean in the 'officious legal meaning of the word', either.
Scientists deal with the abstract properties of elemental components. The pure scientific process is somewhat boring and repetitive, IMO. Lots of wrote memorization, result interpretation, and dealing in absolute numbers with .0001 variance.
Engineers typically deal with the results of science to produce a usable, practical device. They use scientific concepts and practices, but it isn't creat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That, and $2 will get you a coffee in most places.
It's only $1.50 without the honorary degree. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
There's never a practical use for a degree, but it does show that someone thinks he is worthy of the distinction.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh there are practical uses for degrees, just not so much the honorary ones.
Oh, absolutely. The honorary degrees really are intended to recognize you as having done something of significance.
And really, in terms of showing hands-on engineering and other cool things, I think Jamie likely deserved his honorary degree. Judging by some of the calculations I've seen him pull out, I'd say his practic
Re: (Score:2)
Trust me, MythBusters look like rocket scientists compared to a lot of people developing this stuff. Sometimes experience and common sense will get you a lot farther than book learning...
Who cares? (Score:2)
I enjoy the show. It is entertaining and informative. I work at a software development firm and I still have to deal with co workers that believe that the shows on how they faked the moon landings are interesting and or that artificial sweeteners are biological weapons! Not to mention that Airborne prevents colds! Mythbusters is a nice break from the stupid stuff I see everyday. It is a million times better than the reality TV shows and may actually get some kids interested in Science and engineering.
So th
And what is a scientist, anyway? (Score:2)
Sounds like a scientist to me. I mean, isn't that what science is about? Applying scientific methodology to test a theory is pretty much the whole point. The white lab coat is an optional extra.
Re: (Score:2)
Pssh. "being a scientist" is clearly about having an advanced degree, securing grant funding, and publishing your results in the journal of the american obscure science academy.
Every scientist who has ever existed on earth has been a lab-coated, grant-securing, well-published geek. Didn't you get the memo?
Re: (Score:2)
scientist
— n
a person who studies or practises any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods"
So, what exactly would you consider a "scientist"? It might not be their profession per se but when they are using scientific methods on the show to test out various hypotheses, they are technically "scientists".
IED (Score:2)
I agree, what does being a scientist have to do with the price of tea in China.
Considering that most threats the US military vehicles face these days are from IED's and not standard munitions, this sort of makes more sense. It's not like the guys rigging these IED's are chemical engineers or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad that the Mythbusters ratings rank FAR behind shows like "16 and Pregnant" and "American Idol." Can you imagine a world where this were reversed?
"Bulletproof glass" mistake? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't these the same guys who for several years were shielding themselves from explosions with what they thought was bulletproof plexiglass, until they finally tried shooting it with a gun in an episode on bulletproof glass and only then realized that it wasn't bulletproof at all?
Re: (Score:2)
The only true "bullet proof" glass is actually several composite layers layers bonded together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDSG0I8TFdk [youtube.com]
Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake? (Score:5, Informative)
There is no such thing as "bulletproof glass". Usually, what you have is a combination of two things:
* a polymer and glass layered sheet
* of a specific thickness and ply count
For instance, most 'bulletproof glass' is just rated for pistol calibers (as I believe bank teller glass tends to be). Rifle calibers will punch right through. I think you'll need something close to 6" or so to withstand a shot or two from a 30 caliber, high velocity rifle (eg. think mostly anything from WWII, 7.62 NATO, 7.62R, etc.). A .50 Browning is likely to put a nice 'little' pock in such a plate. I wouldn't stand on the other side voluntarily.
And, with all frangible materials, with repeated impacts they will start to be less effective at fulfilling their role.
I believe there's a new polymer/glass/transparent aluminum glass out there, too, but they're all variations on the same theme.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this is what most people don't realize.
There is a hell of large difference between different calibers and even different types of ammunition at the same caliber.
Saying something is bulletproof only means something if you specify against what projectile AND what projectile velocity.
You can get away with much thinner than 6" for .30 cal, but it's still a fairly thick piece of armor.
Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake? (Score:4, Informative)
As 'pistol calibers', and the resultant energy, tend to vary wildly - that's pretty much a meaningless statement. But most teller glass tends to be rated for rifles anyway.
Nope - as little as two inches [protectivestructures.com] or so will stop those kinds of rifles. (UL level 8 [sheltersdirect.com].) You're a decade or two behind state-of-the-art.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Checkout the video I posted above, same stuff only much thicker (Mythbusters use closer to 1/8" Lexan)..
It will be reactive armor... (Score:2)
... composed entirely of water heaters with the safety features defeated.
--
BMO
Obviously an expert (Score:2)
Based on the quotes in the article, we can assume that Heyman "saw some s*** blow up, and now is an expert on blast propagation, terminal ballistics, and high strain rate phenomenon."
Re: (Score:2)
He had Obama on his show in the Fall. Think that campaign PR was free?
Re:Obviously an expert (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you never know, they might actually stumble upon something valid. In fact, they might have already discovered something, and the press release could be lagging significantly behind the development like it does so often with military developments.
They have practical experience:
* blowing stuff up in creative but specific ways using improvised explosive devices, of qualities equal to or exceeding what you'd see in the field
* instrumenting the entire scenario for data analysis later in such a way that the instrumentation is not destroyed
* preventing other stuff from getting destroyed by said explosion
You can spend all day failing to come up with a material with the right properties no matter which angle you attack the problem from. Sure, you could model the physics until your brain leaks out of your ears, and you can also waste inordinate time and materials testing via a "Okay, how about now? Now? Now?" methodology. In the end, you can get similar results by calculation or experiment. Check out Damascus steel, for example - we haven't completely figured that out yet, and we certainly can't reproduce it, but people were making it and you can believe they weren't using modern science to design it. I do believe in the value of science, but it doesn't always need to trump experience.
The guys who experience the effective improvised explosives in the field don't make it back to tell you how it was built, ya know? :(
Re: (Score:2)
Nahh... Bunches of plates of glass...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually composite plating. Duct tape over electrical tape, with explosive reactive armour on the outside. The ER plates are made of C4 and disassembled microwave ovens.
Re: (Score:3)
So, is it going to be made out of 18 layers of pizza, or 6 layers of phone books?
Both, in interwoven delicious layers. A nice advantage to this solution, after you take a blast, you just browse the armor plating for the number of the local pizza place, and you can have repair parts delivered!
Re: (Score:2)
If I recall correctly they are refering to the UK season. They make mixed references to the US showings and the UK in the article. They even noted in an episode about to air in the UK about if Bees really can lift an IBM Thinkpad off the ground that it was shown in the US already and the results were already availible on youtube.
Re:Suprised (Score:4, Informative)
It's just sad when average is seen as something special.
That may well be true for some segment of their viewers. Just the same, a lot of people like watching the show because its applied engineering. They get to build and do things which many of us simply don't have time, budget, or both to tinker. Basically, the show provides an outlet in which many of us vicariously enjoy.
At the end of the day, blowing shit up is fun. Verifying, if even a simpleton approach, classic science experiments is fun. And even though they constantly deviate from the scientific method and constantly completely screw things up, they show can still be fun - even if they are wrong. Its really more about the experience than the result. And if you can get a satisfactory result, its all the better.
Of course, none of that means they are smart, engineers, or scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
Their worth is not that they are exactly "smart", but that they show that you don't need to be so "smart" to use your brains effectively. There are many times when I see they doing things in a sub-optimal way because they don't know better, but they aren't afraid to question their own beliefs. They are always ready to test things from a skeptic's point of view and that's more than many "smarter" people do.
It's like hardware vs. algorithms. The "typical" scientist would be like a supercomputer, the Mythbuste
Re: (Score:2)
Grant can articulate himself in a science-y fashion, and the show gives him the lines to explain the science-y things.
There are plenty of other ways to express intelligence than the spoken word. Grant sounds smart, but there is probably a reason he words for Jaime.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Having actually met Tori in real life, I can assure you that they are all pretty smart. They do mathematical models behind the scenes to back up what they are saying, and yes, they do dumb it down when they are filming, because most of their audience couldn't give a crap about models and math and everything that science actually is, their audience wants to see myths broken or proven and maybe see something blow up along the way.
Moral of the story: don't judge people based on their TV personalities.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, Grant is the only one on the show with a degree in a science/engineering discipline (EE).
What makes Grant unusual is that he can actually BUILD stuff, rather than just simulate it on a computer. Most of the EE's I've worked with over the years are WAY outside of their comfort zone in a shop, and there have been a few that I seriously doubt knew which end of a soldering iron to pick up.
Even Grant has screwed some stuff up on the show, though. I remember the homebrew defibrillator with paddles made fro
Re: (Score:2)
Jaime comes off as reserved enough that I can't legitimately judge his intelligence. Given the breadth of skills he's shown, I'd say he's far from average.
Tory and Kari I'll agree are only above average. Yes, I said above; remember how low the average is. Adam comes off as more intelligent, but seems to have ADHD, which is actually pretty common as a combination. Having a short attention span makes others think a person is less intelligent than they actually are, mostly because of the perceived immaturi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'd like to watch all of the MythBusters episodes, but I'm reluctant to invest 40 minutes to learn 12 minutes' worth of information.
What's Adam's uid here anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone with a DVR has the highlights. I can typically watch a full show in roughly thirty minutes. It could be a little faster if I could instantly skip all commercials. But I have to fast forward through them.
Re: (Score:2)
First and foremost, Mythbusters is entertainment. It may not be your cup of tea, but a lot of people seemingly like to watch the show. I don't watch it that often, but my kids are devoted fans. It allows me to get into discussions with my kids around "what do you think will happen?" or "what are Jamie or Adam doing wrong?". As such, it a lot better value value than 98% of the shows on TV. It's one of the few "Dad approved" shows I let my kids watch on Tivo after all the days activities are done.
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded!
I look forward to this age range with my kids something fierce (right now one's in processing and the other is 9months).
Re: (Score:2)
I know this show is popular with a lot of people, but for me Mythbusters is about the most boring show ever. In any given show, only about five minutes of it is interesting. The rest of it is irritatingly dull, bullshit speculation, or repeating what the viewer just saw right before the last commercial break. And every show, EVERY show has to involve blowing something up. It's nice to see Jamie Hyneman doing something useful for a change. However, I hope he gets to the point if/when he finally demonstrates his armor to the military brass. Otherwise they'll be nodding off, looking at their watches.
Unless, of course, the armor is made of actual "military brass"!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad I'm not the only one.
Mythbusters has done some fascinating work, like Crimes and Myth-Demeanors, and their moon hoax episode. Too many recent episodes have been what I call "crowd pleasers". Little, if any science. Maximum use of gratuitous explosives. The Green Hornet special was a particularly pointless example.
...laura
Why the repetition? (Score:2)
I like the show personally, but I have to agree that the repetition is a bit ridiculous. You can start watching the show half-way in and not feel that you've missed anything. I'm not sure if the reason for that is that they feel the typical audience member is so uninformed about science that they must repeat everything multiple times so they don't get lost, or if it is simple economics (the show is relatively expensive to produce and needs to be padded out to one hour to be viable).