|
anotherone posted:You kind of get the impression that he doesn't really want to be on TV, he just wants to be left alone with his toys. Jamie has always been a bit odd, and he seems like a bitch of a boss. Even before I watched these two little videos, the way he treated the mythterns was always pretty harsh. I think that's why we don't see them too often. And that whole pencils thing was nuts. He was pissed over there being two pads of paper, then he bitched at the guy for there not being a roll of paper towels right next to the station... but there was one directly above it, but he didn't seem to notice.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2008 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
anotherone posted:Comcast OnDemand has a series of short videos with Jamie giving a tour of M5. It's kind of interesting just to see the areas of the workshop without all of the TV lighting. The room they introduce the myths in now is a set, but on the older episodes they used Jamie's office. There's also a lot of areas of the office you never see, there's a whole upstairs which is pretty cool. Every single corner of the building is full of artifacts from SFX jobs and stuff from the show. After watching one of the earlier Mythbusters "Behind the Scenes" episodes I came to the conclusion that Jamie was a sociopath. He really seems to dislike the coworker-interaction they were filming, it was kinda sad. However in newer episodes and BtS stuff he seemed more normal. Until this thing though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2008 03:28
|
|
|
Eunabomber posted:After watching one of the earlier Mythbusters "Behind the Scenes" episodes I came to the conclusion that Jamie was a sociopath. He really seems to dislike the coworker-interaction they were filming, it was kinda sad. However in newer episodes and BtS stuff he seemed more normal. Until this thing though. Uh, disliking social interaction doesn't make someone a sociopath. Either you don't know what that word means, or you're reading way, way too much into things. You guys have some weird ideas about Jamie. He's just an introverted, eccentric perfectionist. He doesn't like the whole celebrity thing, but he does like doing the show. If he didn't like doing the show, I seriously doubt he'd do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2008 03:55
|
|
|
Airplane on a conveyor belt tonight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 02:45
|
|
|
Dr. Memory posted:Airplane on a conveyor belt tonight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 03:41
|
|
|
keeper posted:Was it just me or did the announcer guy sound very condescending during the explanation? I know I would have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 03:43
|
|
|
I didn't realize it was the number 1 most requested myth. Not surprising though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 03:51
|
|
|
Hahahah the pilot thinks he won't be able to take off
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 03:56
|
|
|
Well count down till people argue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 03:59
|
|
|
anotherone posted:Comcast OnDemand has a series of short videos with Jamie giving a tour of M5. It's kind of interesting just to see the areas of the workshop without all of the TV lighting. The room they introduce the myths in now is a set, but on the older episodes they used Jamie's office. There's also a lot of areas of the office you never see, there's a whole upstairs which is pretty cool. Every single corner of the building is full of artifacts from SFX jobs and stuff from the show. How are you getting to it? I went to on demand but couldn't find anything mythbusters or discovery channel related. This ondemand poo poo is such a let down. They were all "YOU GET TO WATCH ALL THIS poo poo ON DEMAND! ALSO IT'S FREE!" Except all the free stuff is boring poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 04:28
|
|
|
Darth Freddy posted:Well count down till people argue. Ha ha ha: quote:Some Nub on the Mythbusters board sez:
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 04:36
|
|
|
I wish these morons would just understand simple physics. When the plane is taking off: The wheels spin at the speed of the aircraft. When the plane is taking off on a treadmill: the wheels just spin faster. I think they should have hooked up some sort of speedometer to the wheels of the craft. So they can see how fast the wheels spin during a normal takeoff, and how fast they spin with the conveyor belt. Adam pretty much explains the whole concept with that RC car on the treadmill. The treadmill just spins the wheels, but he can move the car forward easily. Cojawfee fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Jan 31, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 04:42
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:How are you getting to it? I went to on demand but couldn't find anything mythbusters or discovery channel related. This ondemand poo poo is such a let down. They were all "YOU GET TO WATCH ALL THIS poo poo ON DEMAND! ALSO IT'S FREE!" Except all the free stuff is boring poo poo. Hit On Demand, wait 4 days, hit TV Entertainment, wait a few months, hit Discovery Networks, wait 10 years, hit Discovery Channel, wait for the second coming of christ, hit Mythbusters, wait for the human race to achieve transcendence into some sort of energy beings, and at that point you should see the little mini-episodes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 05:04
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Adam pretty much explains the whole concept with that RC car on the treadmill. The treadmill just spins the wheels, but he can move the car forward easily. Doesn't that blow the point of the experiment, if the plane doesn't remain stationary until liftoff thrust is achieved?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 05:06
|
|
|
The only way to keep the plane stationary would be to rope it to a tree; you simply can't pull the treadmill/cloth tarp thing fast enough to counteract the propeller's thrust.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 05:09
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Doesn't that blow the point of the experiment, if the plane doesn't remain stationary until liftoff thrust is achieved? No matter the speed of the treadmill the free floating wheels will always rotate fast enough to leave the plane in the same place. Therefore it has zero force on the airplane and doesn't effect take off at all. It's all because the wheels are allowed to move at whatever speed the ground is moving at that allow the plane to take off. Now my question is this, if there was a wind counteracting the thrust from the engine, the plane wouldn't move. Correct? The reason I ask is from learning about aircraft carriers. They turn into the wind and it acts as a bit more "speed" for the plane to take off with. Thats how I figured the whole "myth" out for myself. The ground has nothing to do with it, it's all air.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 05:22
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Doesn't that blow the point of the experiment, if the plane doesn't remain stationary until liftoff thrust is achieved? It doesn't blow the point of the experiment, it blows the point of the premise. You can't test the concept at all because it has no rational basis. Tires are a convenience for planes, they can take off just as well with floating pontoons. The only way for the airplane to remain stationary on a conveyor belt is if the propeller is only producing as much thrust as there is rolling friction from the tires. And that's basically nothing, practically impossible to stay in that narrow range. The premise doesn't make any sense because what the tires do has no relation to what the plane is doing. If the idea is to test that forward motion isn't necessary for a plane to fly (which I think is the underlying idea behind the myth), then you're better off tethering the plane to something and not messing with complicated conveyor nonsense. Just run the engine balls out and see if a tethered plane will fly. The problem is that the myth approached the question of "will a plane with no forward momentum fly" by trying to make a plane taxi forever which isn't the way to counteract the reason planes move forward fast. The tires are just a convenience. A plane will move forward and fly even if it's metal to tarmac if there's enough thrust. Edit: ... and enough clearance for the wings for air to flow above and below them. Edit2: VendaGoat posted:Now my question is this, if there was a wind counteracting the thrust from the engine, the plane wouldn't move. Correct? If you mean the plane has a tailwind of say a 90mph or something? It might actually have sufficient lift from the airflow going the wrong direction over the wingshape to have lift before the engines even start. But as it starts taxiing closer to the speed of the wind blowing from the direction of its tail the airflow of its wings will start to get closer to zero and it fail to take off until it gets a groundspeed way higher than normal. Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Jan 31, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 05:24
|
|
|
Dr. Memory posted:The only way to keep the plane stationary would be to rope it to a tree; you simply can't pull the treadmill/cloth tarp thing fast enough to counteract the propeller's thrust. This is what I meant, not the experiment "plane on a treadmill" but really "plane that doesn't move forward while the engines throttle up". If the treadmill can't keep up then it really doesn't prove anything. VendaGoat posted:Now my question is this, if there was a wind counteracting the thrust from the engine, the plane wouldn't move. Correct? I think so. Like Dr. Memory's post, it's all about achieving lift by moving air over the wings (in which case you scarcely need to test anything, a plane that isn't moving just... isn't moving).
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 05:43
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:If you mean the plane has a tailwind of say a 90mph or something? It might actually have sufficient lift from the airflow going the wrong direction over the wingshape to have lift before the engines even start. But as it starts taxiing closer to the speed of the wind blowing from the direction of its tail the airflow of its wings will start to get closer to zero and it fail to take off until it gets a groundspeed way higher than normal. Yah thats what I thought and thats how I "got" the solution. The wheels provide zero movement at all towards the plane. They are neutral, only air movement contribute since any force that is applied to the wheel is effectively canceled by them being allowed to roll in any direction they want to move. So the only force actually being applied to the airplane is air motion provided by the engine and any wind. Thank you very much Agitator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 05:48
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:No matter the speed of the treadmill the free floating wheels will always rotate fast enough to leave the plane in the same place. You could, but it would involve moving the treadmill so fast that the friction of the the wheels moving would be enough that they couldn't spin any faster or would simply fail. Even then they'd probably just drag along the conveyor belt and take off anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 06:06
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:If the idea is to test that forward motion isn't necessary for a plane to fly (which I think is the underlying idea behind the myth) The question is already dumb, we don't need people claiming that the question is defining the plane as stationary to make it even dumber. I mean really, the fact that a plane needs airspeed to take off is basically a fundamental truth. It's not something that needs to be tested, that's how flight works. We cannot know what the intention of the person who wrote the question was. All we know is what the question itself says. The question proposes a scenario: A plane is on a treadmill. The question defines the movement of the objects: equal speeds, opposite directions. It then asks if the plane can take off. Since it is a fundamental truth that the plane needs airspeed to fly, the question is not "will the non moving plane leap into the air" it is "can this device that we have just defined prevent the plane from achieving airspeed." And the answer is no.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 06:16
|
|
|
IRQ posted:You could, but it would involve moving the treadmill so fast that the friction of the the wheels moving would be enough that they couldn't spin any faster or would simply fail. But in physics you always assume it's frictionless unless stated otherwise. I got your joke. Edit: thought of this while in the shower. With as condescending as Adam and Jamie were in this episode, I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of them got it wrong at first and went back and filmed it like they knew. That or they were just pissed off about how much arguing there was over it. VendaGoat fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Jan 31, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 06:36
|
|
|
Just watched the M5 tour on Discovery.com, and...drat, Jamie does get a little scary about the pencils and poo poo. I realize that with all crazy stuff there if order isn't maintained then you'll never be able to find anything, but I kind of though he was gonna make the camera guy drop and give him 20 for having 2 calculators instead of just 1.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 07:50
|
|
|
As I pilot myself, I am completely shocked that the dude they hired to fly that ultralight actually thought this ridiculous myth was plausible...seriously, I don't understand the vehemence about this myth, its so loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 08:01
|
|
|
The Myth is impossible to truly test since the wheels will stop gripping and just start sliding after the treadmill gets up to a certain speed. Then of course the plane will probably still take off it will just take more runway than usual.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 08:12
|
|
|
Ugh this treadmill myth is stupid as hell. People have so many different opinions of what is supposed to be happening. That pilot was stupid. On a related note, I would love to know if you could fly a plane backwards. I've done it in flight simulator, but is it possible in real life? Take a 100 knot head wind (or whatever is past the minimum takeoff speed) so you're generating enough lift while staying in place (or moving backwards). And smash labs is dumb as hell. "Lets make expensive outrageous solutions to problems that shouldn't be problems in the first place." I mean honestly, if you're retarded enough to drive around crossing gates, or stop on train tracks you deserve to die in my eyes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 08:20
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:But in physics you always assume it's frictionless unless stated otherwise. It's literally been posted on their forums for years. They weren't going to do it as it wasn't a myth, but more of a "I don't know physics" question. They finally got fed up with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 08:28
|
|
|
Aero737 posted:Ugh this treadmill myth is stupid as hell. People have so many different opinions of what is supposed to be happening. That pilot was stupid. Yes, you can fly backwards relative to the ground. In a Cessna 172, it only takes ~50 knots headwind, since with full flaps you can slow to an airspeed of about 40 knots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 08:31
|
|
|
Elysium posted:The question is already dumb, we don't need people claiming that the question is defining the plane as stationary to make it even dumber. I mean really, the fact that a plane needs airspeed to take off is basically a fundamental truth. It's not something that needs to be tested, that's how flight works. But you said it yourself. How can a treadmill counteract airspeed? If a plane needs 25 mph of airspeed to takeoff, how fast does a treadmill have to go to counteract that? The answer is there is no answer unless you talk about some esoteric transferrence from the friction force of the extremely fast treadmill on the standing air. A treadmill counteracts groundspeed but doesn't do poo poo about airspeed. Airspeed is a measure of the speed of air and a treadmill can't replicate or negate any part of airspeed. It's the wrong tool for the job. The question is nonsensical because it creates an impossible situation of opposite directions of "speed": the treadmill in one and the plane in the other. You can do that with a car very easily, rev the car engine to 25mph and the conveyor to 25mph and you sit still. Like a dynamometer. But you can't do that with a plane because it's the wrong tool. You need a wind tunnel because the proper measure for a plane is airspeed. Planes can and do take off at zero groundspeed including those that are tethered down during hurricanes. They can also land safely at zero groundspeed. The entire premise is based off of those two incompatible things. Even the test pilot made the mistake that I propose the originator of the myth did, that you could somehow calibrate the throttle of a plane to the speed of a conveyor belt. But you can't do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 08:32
|
|
|
Broken Condom posted:It's literally been posted on their forums for years. Hey for them it's another hour long show they get paid for and even if they think it's stupid, it's now put to bed, hopefully, forever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 08:48
|
|
|
I just watched the M5 tour, and that was crazy. Jamie was just walking around saying "Yeah, this is this part of the shop, these drawers are filled with stuff that any other shop would put in these drawers. Oh wait, let me berate my employees for a quick second." He seems like the kind of guy where you laugh at his jokes because if you don't, he sucks your soul out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 08:54
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:But you said it yourself. How can a treadmill counteract airspeed? If a plane needs 25 mph of airspeed to takeoff, how fast does a treadmill have to go to counteract that? The answer is there is no answer unless you talk about some esoteric transferrence from the friction force of the extremely fast treadmill on the standing air. A treadmill counteracts groundspeed but doesn't do poo poo about airspeed. Airspeed is a measure of the speed of air and a treadmill can't replicate or negate any part of airspeed. It's the wrong tool for the job. Wow when you put it like this you've actually convinced me that the originator of the myth was just as big of dumbass as the people arguing the no take offy. I always assumed he was just being clever and wanted to get people thinking about if a conveyer belt will have an effect on an aircraft's method of generating thrust and lift. When you put it like that it seems just as plausible that he assumed (quite incorrectly) that a belt could quite easily keep the plane stationary and the question is could the plane still take off in its stationary position. At any rate, I felt the episode could have done a better job of setting the ground rule that it's a given a plane with 0 airspeed is never going to take off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 10:41
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:But you said it yourself. How can a treadmill counteract airspeed? If a plane needs 25 mph of airspeed to takeoff, how fast does a treadmill have to go to counteract that? The answer is there is no answer unless you talk about some esoteric transferrence from the friction force of the extremely fast treadmill on the standing air. A treadmill counteracts groundspeed but doesn't do poo poo about airspeed. Airspeed is a measure of the speed of air and a treadmill can't replicate or negate any part of airspeed. It's the wrong tool for the job. You are presupposing that the answer is SUPPOSED to be yes. It's just a question. The answer to which is no. The question isn't "this treadmill can counteract airspeed, can the plane fly," It's "here is a treadmill, CAN it counteract airspeed" and the answer is no. You are trying to make it more than it is and then claiming it doesn't make sense because you are assuming facts not in evidence (what you think the guy "meant" when he wrote the question, and not what the question says). quote:The question is nonsensical because it creates an impossible situation of opposite directions of "speed": the treadmill in one and the plane in the other. You can do that with a car very easily, rev the car engine to 25mph and the conveyor to 25mph and you sit still. Simply measure their speeds from a fixed frame of reference outside the two objects. That would be from the earth, just like any normal observer watching the plane. Use a radar gun to verify speeds if you like. They will be going the same speed, in opposite directions. This is in no way nonsensical. What is nonsensical is to attempt to measure the plane's speed relative to the belt, and then switch frames of reference and allow yourself to measure the belt's speed to the ground, claiming the plane can be stationary and still have a "speed" which is "opposite" the belt, and yet still the "same" as the belt. You only see this as a valid viewpoint because you think that the question is presupposing a stationary plane. It's not. Elysium fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Jan 31, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 15:05
|
|
|
Elysium posted:You are presupposing that the answer is SUPPOSED to be yes. It's just a question. The answer to which is no. My point is the essential starting point of the myth is where is falls apart. It shows two arrows, one pointing along the treadmill and one pointing the opposite direction on the airplane. It's the essential incompatibility of the very myth. How can you setup the myth such that it starts with the arrow pointing along the plane? A plane's "arrow" is airflow and the treadmill is stationary. If a plane is stationary, such as being on a treadmill, its "arrow" is zero. You can't have a starting situation where a plane is on a treadmill with an "arrow" and have a comparable opposite arrow for the treadmill. The very definition of an airplane having an arrow means it isn't stationary (unless it's in a wind tunnel). You should read the topic on the Discovery boards. There is a substantial contingent who are somewhat angry that the pilot couldn't get his throttle right so that the myth could be properly tested. That's because the basic setup for the myth is impossible. Edit: My point being that a myth setup should allow for a yes or no answer. The basic component of the myth didn't allow for that and they had to do workarounds that twist the myth. Like starting the plane moving backwards on the truck-driven tarp and then throttling up. Or starting the plane by having Adam hold it. It's just because the base setup for the myth is kind of impossible. Edit: I'm in 100% agreement with you there. V V V V V V Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Jan 31, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 15:22
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:My point is the essential starting point of the myth is where is falls apart ... That's because the basic setup for the myth is impossible. Well that's because it's not actually a myth, it's just a dumb question with a simple answer. The problem is a lot of dumb people think it is possible, as evidenced by the 50 pages of "you did it wrong!" on the mythbusters board.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 15:37
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:With as condescending as Adam and Jamie were in this episode, I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of them got it wrong at first and went back and filmed it like they knew. That or they were just pissed off about how much arguing there was over it. It's not like it was that out-of-the-blue, the Straight Dope column that said "the plane takes off you idiots" is almost 2 years old and I'm sure the question came up before that too. But of course the people who believe things like the airplane won't take off, 9/11 was an inside job, or that Ron Paul would be a good president, will pretty much never be convinced by any amount of evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 16:01
|
|
|
Maybe instead of simply replicating the problem and showing the plane easily taking off, they should have *opened* by reading the question, saying "well that's dumb, the plane will easily take off" and then explain the whole "engines work with the air" "free spinning" wheels thing. Having already settled that, they would then spend the episode trying to figure out a way to get a treadmill to stop a plane from moving forward. They would fail miserably of course, but it would really drive home the point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 16:38
|
|
|
Elysium posted:Maybe instead of simply replicating the problem and showing the plane easily taking off, they should have *opened* by reading the question, saying "well that's dumb, the plane will easily take off" and then explain the whole "engines work with the air" "free spinning" wheels thing. Having already settled that, they would then spend the episode trying to figure out a way to get a treadmill to stop a plane from moving forward. They would fail miserably of course, but it would really drive home the point. With all the e-mails on the subject that I'm sure they're going to get, I'd be willing to bet that they're going to re-visit this one and do exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 19:15
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:It's not like it was that out-of-the-blue, the Straight Dope column that said "the plane takes off you idiots" is almost 2 years old and I'm sure the question came up before that too. They could also be confused by the question as it is designed to be confusing. At first glance it seems like a simple opposite, equal, force question and most people could just take it at face value and get it wrong. Now add in that to explain it can sometimes get a bit confusing and add in the fact that people get so drat upset about this question that they will belittle and dehumanize others over it and it becomes more than a simple physics question. People are actually getting insulted and that is no way to teach another. If you want a perfect way to explain to a person how the plane takes off, tie a paper airplane to a fan. The airplane will stay airborne but not move forward or backward, showing that airspeed is what is necessary to flight. Then explain about the wheels in neutral and finally add in the prop engine explanation. Now if you explain that all in a congenial manner, without insult or injury and they still don't "get" it there may just be some confusion so keep explaining calmly. If they just come back with a "lol you suck, gently caress off" realize you are dealing with a jackass who is being dense for the fun of it or is just unwilling to learn because of sheer bullheadedness and move on. I'd like to say that 80% of the people are just confused and because of all the bullshit are getting defensive because of all the fighting and 20% are just there causing problems. This being the internet though it's probably more along the lines of 20% confused 80% gently caress heads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Electric Hobo posted:Uh, disliking social interaction doesn't make someone a sociopath. Either you don't know what that word means, or you're reading way, way too much into things. There was a story posted earlier in the thread about how Jamie went out for drinks once with some of the people on the show, got pissed about something insignificant and stared for hours at the wall, drinking silently. I don't think he's a sociopath, but the guy's got some rather bizarre personality traits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2008 01:37
|
|
