Smash Lab

[B Cereus]

Does anyone else watch this show? It's on the Discovery channel, usually scheduled after MythBusters. It has a team of 4 people (an "ideas" guy, an engineer, a designer, and a ''scientist"), and they take some technology that has a real-world use, then try to apply it to some other use, frequently for safety applications.

A recent episode had them trying to use carbon-dioxide fire extinguishers to stop a car during a high-speed chase. My SO and I both like this show because it isn't as personality-driven as MythBusters, and it shows how technology and science really work. The team starts with a usable technology, then try to scale it up or model it for their proposed application. They don't always have successes, and they usually try to explain why it did or did not work.

[Loren Pechtel]

I do watch it but to me it's nowhere near as good as mythbusters. The problem is they are idiots. Many of the things they attempt are obvious non-starters or impractical. They also don't really know what they are doing. Consider that attempt to put a fire blanket over a house. They sewed pockets in the fabric--but that means that there is no insulation at the stitch line! A workable design either needs three layers of fabric with the inner layer zig-zagging back and forth between the two outer layers or it needs a bunch of little partitions. I would think a zig-zagging layer (think of how cardboard is engineered) would be the easiest design.

Besides, it would be awfully expensive to pre-position--you would need one for every house in wildfire territory. If something along those lines were to be done (which to me does look like something worth investigating) it shouldn't be built for the house, it should be something brought in by helicopter during the fire-fighting operation. Put some open containers of water near the building, put the blanket over the entire building and the containers--the water boiling off will keep things from going much above the boiling point. So long as a tree doesn't fall on it or something I would think it would protect the building.

[The 800# Gorilla]

They are nothing more than actors that are given a script to read. They have no formal thoughts of their own.

[B Cereus]

Loren, I do agree that some of the things they come up with are not practical on a large scale, or for home use, but I like the way that they approach the problem.

One of the things that bugs me (well, my SO more, he's an engineer) about MythBusters is that they seldom do calculations first, but tend to do things based on hunches or guesses (that later turn out to be wrong, but could be shown to be wrong initially if they had performed the calculations). I can't think of any specific examples right now.

[David M]

One show I like a lot is Rough Science - they get challenged to make items such as radiation detectors, anti-perspirant, photosensitive paper and a washing machine using what is available in the environment, junk left at the location and a few basic tools (and usually a lot of wire and some magnets when they need electricity).

[Quizalufagus]

One of the things that bugs me (well, my SO more, he's an engineer) about MythBusters is that they seldom do calculations first, but tend to do things based on hunches or guesses (that later turn out to be wrong, but could be shown to be wrong initially if they had performed the calculations). I can't think of any specific examples right now.

That's because math generally doesn't sell. Tell people what the math says, and you alienate 80% of the audience.

[B Cereus]

One of the things that bugs me (well, my SO more, he's an engineer) about MythBusters is that they seldom do calculations first, but tend to do things based on hunches or guesses (that later turn out to be wrong, but could be shown to be wrong initially if they had performed the calculations). I can't think of any specific examples right now.

That's because math generally doesn't sell. Tell people what the math says, and you alienate 80% of the audience.

Maybe that's what it is! :D

[Matty]

One show I like a lot is Rough Science - they get challenged to make items such as radiation detectors, anti-perspirant, photosensitive paper and a washing machine using what is available in the environment, junk left at the location and a few basic tools (and usually a lot of wire and some magnets when they need electricity).

Great show

[Plognark]

Not a fan of Smashlab. :yuck:

Mythbusters = win.

Rough Science sounds good, I'll have to find out when it's on.

[Matty]

rough science Open UNi page. (http://www.open2.net/home/custom_search?search_terms=rough+science&entity_names=object)

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren, I do agree that some of the things they come up with are not practical on a large scale, or for home use, but I like the way that they approach the problem.

One of the things that bugs me (well, my SO more, he's an engineer) about MythBusters is that they seldom do calculations first, but tend to do things based on hunches or guesses (that later turn out to be wrong, but could be shown to be wrong initially if they had performed the calculations). I can't think of any specific examples right now.

Yeah, Mythbusters is careless about the math.

Smash Lab is more careful about that but they get obsessed with an idea and don't think of the practicality.

[Loren Pechtel]

One of the things that bugs me (well, my SO more, he's an engineer) about MythBusters is that they seldom do calculations first, but tend to do things based on hunches or guesses (that later turn out to be wrong, but could be shown to be wrong initially if they had performed the calculations). I can't think of any specific examples right now.

That's because math generally doesn't sell. Tell people what the math says, and you alienate 80% of the audience.

But they should have done it anyway. It need not show up much in the show but they should know the answers. It would keep them from going down stupid dead-ends and would catch some howlers that slip through: For example, figuring the failure temperature of various cans--and never noting that the numbers were absolutely insane. What they didn't realize was the heat wasn't soaking in, they were measuring the environment, not the contents.

They also concluded that the sun would never blow a pressurized can. Never mind that they looked at only moderate heat and didn't consider those of us living in hot desert areas, nor the possibility that the can would end up in the sun. I've had a can let go in my own car--it most certainly can happen!

[Plognark]

One of the things that bugs me (well, my SO more, he's an engineer) about MythBusters is that they seldom do calculations first, but tend to do things based on hunches or guesses (that later turn out to be wrong, but could be shown to be wrong initially if they had performed the calculations). I can't think of any specific examples right now.

That's because math generally doesn't sell. Tell people what the math says, and you alienate 80% of the audience.

But they should have done it anyway. It need not show up much in the show but they should know the answers. It would keep them from going down stupid dead-ends and would catch some howlers that slip through: For example, figuring the failure temperature of various cans--and never noting that the numbers were absolutely insane. What they didn't realize was the heat wasn't soaking in, they were measuring the environment, not the contents.

They also concluded that the sun would never blow a pressurized can. Never mind that they looked at only moderate heat and didn't consider those of us living in hot desert areas, nor the possibility that the can would end up in the sun. I've had a can let go in my own car--it most certainly can happen!

They could be more careful, certainly. I get a lot of enjoyment when they go back and revisit their screw-ups. The frozen chicken gun comes to mind.

They've got a haphazard style that I find enjoyable, and picking out errors in some of their methods is fun.

Even if they're sloppy, they're honest about it, and have fun just blowing shit up.

Neither Mythbusters nor the painfully scripted and stiff Smashlab are outright frauds like the useless fuckers behind Braniac (http://www.badscience.net/?p=261).

Those guys found that sodium in a bathtub of water doesn't actually go off like a bomb, so they just chucked some dynamite in them to get the desired dramatic result. They also faked several other shows, including their "brown note" episode; something the Mythbusters debunked. Braniac had a bunch of assholes in diapers pretending to shit their pants.

[Loren Pechtel]

Neither Mythbusters nor the painfully scripted and stiff Smashlab are outright frauds like the useless fuckers behind Braniac (http://www.badscience.net/?p=261).


Yeah, that stinks!

[DanB]

Beakman's World (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106367/) rules!

[Plognark]

Neither Mythbusters nor the painfully scripted and stiff Smashlab are outright frauds like the useless fuckers behind Braniac (http://www.badscience.net/?p=261).


Yeah, that stinks!

They actually got some awards for excellent TV programming in Britain before they got found out.

The one thing I know for sure they didn't fake is their show on thermite. And I only know that because I've played with thermite before, and I know what terrifying things it's capable of.

[Plognark]

Beakman's World (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106367/) rules!

Ha! I remember that show! That was pretty good, like a zanier version of Bill Nye.