MythBusters Juggling
Mangatang
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html
Anyway, I was watching the pirate episode this weekend, and saw Adam (the
red-haired guy) do some juggling. He picked up three oranges and did a
shower pattern followed by a cascade, reverse cascade, and a half shower.
Later in the show he was doing a four ball (orange) reverse fountain.
He looked to be a pretty good juggler. Does anyone know anything about
his juggling background?
Can anyone think of some juggling myths that we could send to the show.
They are looking for myth ideas from their viewers, so they can make new
shows. It would be cool if they did an entire show devoted to juggling.
The only juggling myth I can think of is that jugglers can't get laid, but
that one might be hard to prove/disprove on national TV.
--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----
Adam Rowney
NERD wrote:
> 1: Contact juggling. I know, it takes an insane amount of skills, but
> it's only interesting for 1 minute MAX. And the funny thing about it is
> that none of these weirdos seem to be able to put on a decent show. I
> have seen a few at ejc and other conventions, and they all suck.
>
> 2: Devil sticks - I know, this takes a fair amount of skills too, but is
> in fact less interesting to watch than commercials on TV.
>
> 3: Flower sticks - Same as devil sticks, but you have the added fact
> that the performer looks like a bum and are wearing the smelly stuff he
> did last week, and the week before, and ......
>
> 4: Poi Swinging - This is not really juggling, but Ill add it since the
> performers usually like to think it is: Well, it's in fact no more
> juggling than carrying home to bags of grocery from the store.
>
> 5: Diabolo - This looks if you juggle three of them i a shower pattern.
> The rest of the stuff just suck. The fact that this has a risen in
> popularity just proves the fact that there is a lot of idiots in the world.
>
> 6: Yo Yo - See Poi Swinging, but remove one bag of grocery.
>
> 7: Joggling - would be interesting if the performer was a girl and nude.
>
> 8: Sticks - Stick are merely for idiots who want to set a record and
> cant do it with any of the props other people use. It just flat out
> suck, real men use clubs.
>
> 9: Hat juggling - Haggis is awesome with it, and he is the exception
> proving the rule.
>
> 10: Shaker cups: MY EARS!!! Next time I see one I might punch him in the
> face and we will be even.
Eamon
All juggling is done in a shower pattern[1]?
All juggling patterns cross?
Juggling is not a sport [2]?
[1] or even a perfect circle!
[2] Don't try and reply telling me it's not a sport, that's like saying
cycling isn't a sport because you like to cycle to see the countryside and
don't do it competitivly. The WJF is a competitive organisation for
jugglers, therefore juggling is a sport. It is also a hobby, and an art.
Mutton
> Anybody else a MythBusters fan (Discovery Channel)? It's a great show.
>
> http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html
>
> Anyway, I was watching the pirate episode this weekend, and saw Adam (the
> red-haired guy) do some juggling. He picked up three oranges and did a
> shower pattern followed by a cascade, reverse cascade, and a half shower.
> Later in the show he was doing a four ball (orange) reverse fountain.
>
> He looked to be a pretty good juggler. Does anyone know anything about
> his juggling background?
My guess is he got bored one day and decided to learn it. Obviously,
he's the type of guy who likes to play around with stuff. I've seen him
juggle in a few other episodes too. It's interesting that you should
bring this up, there is a guy I met at Philly Fest who learned to juggle
after seeing Adam do it on TV.
The Mythbusters are doing a live show/performance really close to where
I live. I would love to ask Adam about his juggling myself, but
apparently I'm the last person in Ohio to know about the tour stop and
tickets are already sold out! :(
>
> Can anyone think of some juggling myths that we could send to the show.
> They are looking for myth ideas from their viewers, so they can make new
> shows. It would be cool if they did an entire show devoted to juggling.
>
> The only juggling myth I can think of is that jugglers can't get laid, but
> that one might be hard to prove/disprove on national TV.
>
Heh, I can't really think of anything. It would be great to see more
juggling by the Mythbusters though - or anything on TV that encourages
other people to juggle!
--
Andrew Gradisher
ChrisFowler
I saw that episode too, and I was impressed. He was able to do a short
run of 4 oranges, but in reverse fountain. a strange way to learn 4, for
sure.
his shower looked pretty solid. granted, they only showed about 10
seconds total of him juggling...
Dave Altman
> All juggling is done in a shower pattern[1]?
Yeah, Eamon, that is funny. People wanting to do a shower pattern when
they are first learning doesn't bother me and I even understand why, but
the people that think we are able to throw the bottom throw slightly down
and it magically travels in a arch to the other hand amazes me.
I didn't even know people thought we did that and relatively recently.
Dave, a juggler
David Cain
a lot of juggling on the show over the years. He can juggle clubs,
face balance, and walk on a barrell while juggling, among other
skills. His juggling interest predates the show.
David Cain
SuchaMuggle
You were watching the 'Pirate' epsiode? Should you be admitting that on
the public internet?
hehe.
I want a Mythbusters that shows the entire world that fire juggling is not
dangerous.
I am SO SICK of gigs not allowing me to juggle fire, because it's
"POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS." It's not that I have liability insurance (which
I do) and a totally safe routine (which I also do).
I have tried many times to start a fire with my torches, in bushes, on the
grass, on fabric, and I can say it's damn near impossible. If a major
network television show like Mythbusters would take on this issue, then
the next time some tiny-brained idiot tries to forbid me from juggling
fire, I can just say, "don't you watch Mythbusters?" instead of just
calling the guy a pencilpenis and getting in trouble for doing my fire
routine anyway.
They could also show the true numbers records and historical records, so
people won't keep thinking that 20 balls is possible.
Also, could we get someone to show bowling pins, and weigh them, next to
juggling clubs, and kind of OVERemphasize the difference so that people
will stop confusing the two objects.
Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go practice my 20 Flaming Bowling Pin
routine.
John
Dave Altman
> I want a Mythbusters that shows the entire world that fire juggling is not
John, does anybody actually know this Adam guy? It certainly seems like he
would be open to your ideas and I'm thinking there are enough myths to
debunk. At first, I was only thinking of the "perfect circle" thing and
that isn't enough to do a whole show, but you had a bunch of good ones.
Don't people write in suggestions? People like Arthur Lewbel would be good
to have on the show and you too, John. Not only would it clear up some
myths, but some jugglers would get a little air time.
Dave, a juggler
SuchaMuggle
>
> SuchaMuggle wrote:
> > I want a Mythbusters that shows the entire world that fire juggling is not
> > dangerous....[lots of great ideas for them]
>
> to have on the show and you too, John. Not only would it clear up some
> myths, but some jugglers would get a little air time.
>
> Dave, a juggler
>
Thanks for the compliment!
I would like to be on the show, but ONLY if they let me debunk the "fire
is dangerous" myth.
I don't want kids to play with fire, but I do want them to learn that fire
can be safely juggled if they learn it properly. We teach kids to drive,
and that's way more dangerous than fire juggling. Even when it's done
safely.
John
Jason Kollum
> I am SO SICK of gigs not allowing me to juggle fire, because it's
> "POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS." It's not that I have liability insurance (which
> I do) and a totally safe routine (which I also do).
> They could also show the true numbers records and historical records, so
> people won't keep thinking that 20 balls is possible.
>
> Also, could we get someone to show bowling pins, and weigh them, next to
> juggling clubs, and kind of OVERemphasize the difference so that people
> will stop confusing the two objects.
I'm a huge fan of those show as well. The funny thing is, I never
know when the new episodes air, I only watch it when I randomly come
across it, yet somehow, I've managed to see almost every episode, and
whenever I do see that its on, I always see a repeat.
BTW, what is the name of the red-haired girl on the show? I would
definitly like to meet her, not like that would ever happen. I got a
thing for red-headed women.
As much as I get those comments too, and as much as I do hate them, in
a way, it's misconceptions such as the ones you mentioned that have
helped to keep the public's interest in juggling. I ask, do we really
want to bust all these myths about juggling? When we're in a public
place juggling, and people are amazed we are juggling fire, if they
knew just how safe and easy it was, they wouldn't bother to come up to
us anymore.
If they knew the world record for balls was a flash of 13 (I think),
they would no longer bother to come up to us and tell us how good we
are when we are 'only' doing 5. They would no longer be impressed by
knives, by rola-bola's, by how good we must be to be able to juggle
"real bowling pins."
I think if the public knew about the "truths" about all these aspects
of juggling, they wouldn't bother to be impressed anymore. I never
tell my audiences something I'm not in my show, but I also don't go
out of my way to explain every detail behind juggling torches either.
What if magicians told how every one of their tricks is done, where's
the "magic" then?
All of these myths about juggling add to the entertainment factor. In
a sense, the more educated the public is about these 'myths' perhaps
the more they will lose interest in jugglers.
Believe it or not, as much as us jugglers have juggled fire, and as
commonground as it is to us, there are people who have never seen a
fire juggler before, and when you're doing a show, you want that
amazement factor--that wow factor.
In short, the red-haired girl from Myth Busters is totally hot, and I
do not want to see all these juggling myths--busted. Though having
Jason Garfield punch Buster in the face might be kinda funny.
Jason
popstar_dave
Yeah, fire shows never hurt anyone. Fool.
http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_topstories/~3/104237930/index.html
Dave
popstar_dave
It may not have been pure torch juggling, but it doesn't take away from
the fact that fire is a dangerous medium, and should be regarded as such.
Underestimate its dangers at your own risk, not at the risk of others.
Chiok
>
> Anybody else a MythBusters fan (Discovery Channel)? It's a great show.
>
> http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html
Love the show, watch it all the time[1]. I've also seen Adam juggle on
many an occasion and he does seem like the guy that has been picking up
odd skills all over the place throughout his life. I love the episode
where they pull up Ricky Jay and they do some card throwing. Juggling
silicone implants, that's tricky, though a water-wibbly is the closest
I've tried.
> The only juggling myth I can think of is that jugglers can't get laid, but
> that one might be hard to prove/disprove on national TV.
How about recreating juggling on the moon? There's a form you can fill in
for requests of myths to be busted I believe on the site, though it's an
awfully long list at the moment and I pity the person who reads them.
Chiok
www.gravityvomit.co.uk
[1] - When I'm somewhere with The Discovery Channel[2]
[2] - Or Winamp.
Dave Altman
> > Yeah, fire shows never hurt anyone. Fool.
> >
> > http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_topstories/~3/104237930/index.html
> >
> > Dave
> >
>
> It may not have been pure torch juggling, but it doesn't take away from
> the fact that fire is a dangerous medium, and should be regarded as such.
>
> Underestimate its dangers at your own risk, not at the risk of others.
Might not have been pure torch juggling? I see no mention of juggling or
the use of torches, Dave, only that it was a type of fire show with a 5
gal fuel can near by. John was totally aware of this story and his
statements are far from being foolish. Of course fires kill people, but
torch juggling isn't the cause. Your reaction is exactly the thing of
behavior John was talking about. Who has ever hear of a deadly fire cause
by a juggling torch? None that I've ever heard about. 5 gal = about 20
liters of fuel, what juggler used that much? A disposable lighter is more
dangerous that a juggling torch.
Dave, a juggler
ChrisFowler
The red-haired girl would be Kari Byron, and I agree-she's definitely hot.
As for busting juggling myths, I don't know that it would actually
happen. Maybe if a bunch of jugglers sent in suggestions, but I doubt
they would see it as having enough appeal to the general public. Big
explosions, head-on semi collisions, and finding creative ways to launch
Buster are just more entertaining:)
I would like to see more juggling on the show, but I do like it as it
already is. So either way I'm cool with it.
jani
> As for busting juggling myths, I don't know that it would actually
> happen. Maybe if a bunch of jugglers sent in suggestions, but I doubt
> they would see it as having enough appeal to the general public.
As for Kari, yes, she is hot.
I don't really see how many of these juggling myths would be good TV.
Jamie: "Here we are at the studio, exploring the myth that a normal
juggling pattern forms a circle. Adam, would you please juggle these
balls for us."
Adam: "Sure thing, Jamie."
Adam juggles three ball cascade.
Jamie: "There's another myth busted. Good night."
jani
--
- Jani's Photo of the Day -
An attempt to shoot and publish
exactly 365 photographs in 2007
http://www.janikyllonen.com/
Mangatang
>
> I don't really see how many of these juggling myths would be good TV.
>
If it's good TV you want, maybe we can start a few juggling myths/rumors.
Something like, juggling live grenades is possible, as long as you don't
drop them. The constant movement and changing of direction of the
grenades in the cascade pattern inhibits the explosion (even after the pin
has been pulled).
Or, juggling torches is so easy, you can even juggle the fire end for five
minutes without getting burned.
Or, it's easier to learn juggling using live kittens instead of balls,
because the cats always land on their feet in your hands, making them
easier to catch.
Wait a minute!
Actually, I just thought of a real one! I remember hearing a riddle about
how can a 200-pound man carrying three 10-pound weights walk across a
bridge that can only withstand 210 pounds? [1] The answer was that he
juggle the balls while walking across. The thought was that only two
balls were ever being supported by him/bridge at a time. This would be a
pretty cool one for them to debunk. No explosions or anything, but still
pretty interesting.
[1] American measurement of weight, not British measurement of money.
Little Paul
> jani wrote:
>>
>> I don't really see how many of these juggling myths would be good TV.
>>
>
> If it's good TV you want, maybe we can start a few juggling myths/rumors.
> Something like, juggling live grenades is possible, as long as you don't
> drop them. The constant movement and changing of direction of the
> grenades in the cascade pattern inhibits the explosion (even after the pin
> has been pulled).
Been done:
http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2001-20.html
> [1] American measurement of weight
avoirdupois, troy or apothecary?
-Paul
--
Help me collect 100 Signed Jugging Promotional Fotos!
http://100jugglers.org 4 down, 96 to go
Steven
> Anybody else a MythBusters fan (Discovery Channel)? It's a great show.
>
> http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html
>
> Anyway, I was watching the pirate episode this weekend, and saw Adam (the
> red-haired guy) do some juggling. He picked up three oranges and did a
> shower pattern followed by a cascade, reverse cascade, and a half shower.
> Later in the show he was doing a four ball (orange) reverse fountain.
>
> He looked to be a pretty good juggler. Does anyone know anything about
> his juggling background?
I know they have made reference to it numerous times, as well as his
attending area juggling clubs.
> Can anyone think of some juggling myths that we could send to the show.
> They are looking for myth ideas from their viewers, so they can make new
> shows. It would be cool if they did an entire show devoted to juggling.
The Pepsi Challenge would be a good one (http://www.circusnews.com/
modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1352), but I can't think of
many others specific to juggling. Perhaps we should expand the genre
to include other circus arts?
Contortionists: Born or learned?
I can't cound the number of ware walking myths I have heard
How many trapeze and other aerial arts myths are floating around?
How about clowning myths?
Fire arts myths? http://nafaa.pbwiki.com/MythBusters
Dave Altman
A clown myth, like "Clowns are funny"?
That was a cool link on fire arts. It seems many have been tested or
debunked already. Like people thought I was doing something dangerous when
I re-dipped a relatively hot torch in fuel. It created smoke, but nothing
else. The Myth Busters went on step further and dipped a lit torch in fuel
without any problem. I see no reason to do that, but it eases my mind that
a torch that isn't totally cooled off is going to explode the fuel.
Dave, a juggler
PS I don't do fire anymore since I've given up doing street shows.
boosh
myths:
jugglers LOVE the circus music
all jugglers are clowns
two ball shower is a propper pattern
just a few i thought of.
luke
x
popstar_dave
I'm well aware that it wasn't a juggler. It was a bartender doing a fire
show involving lit drinks (if you can believe what you read). All I was
saying is that any show involving fire can be dangerous, and that you'd be
a fool to underestimate this danger and risk the well-being of your
audience. I've got no problems with people performing fire shows, just
make sure you're talking every precaution.
Dave
Dave Altman
> All I was
> saying is that any show involving fire can be dangerous, and that you'd be
> a fool to underestimate this danger and risk the well-being of your
> audience. I've got no problems with people performing fire shows, just
> make sure you're talking every precaution.
There's no reason to go round-and-round on this point, but it's a matter
of knowing the true risks involved. I don't want to put words in John's
mouth, but he was trying to say that clients worry about fire too much and
don't know the true and false dangers. And, I think John was saying that
juggling fire is not dangerous at all. Juggling fire will not set anything
on fire unless you try real hard.
Now, how you handle the fuel can be somewhat dangerous and that is where
you need to focus your attention. Don't put it where someone can trip over
it, don't leave large amount open, and a few other things, maybe, but
those are the major ones.
We need to educate the clients, not the public really. We want them to
think it's dangerous, at least, sometimes we do.
catiecat
>
> Wait a minute!
>
> Actually, I just thought of a real one! I remember hearing a riddle about
> how can a 200-pound man carrying three 10-pound weights walk across a
> bridge that can only withstand 210 pounds? [1] The answer was that he
> juggle the balls while walking across. The thought was that only two
> balls were ever being supported by him/bridge at a time. This would be a
> pretty cool one for them to debunk. No explosions or anything, but still
> pretty interesting.
>
> [1] American measurement of weight, not British measurement of money.
>
> --
> ----== posted viawww.jugglingdb.com==----
I've heard that riddle before too, and I think it would be a really
good myth for the show. My friends and I actually had a conversation
about this one day with a friend of ours who's a phyisist/engineer
(who also happens to be into circus arts) and he says the answer to
the riddle isn't true. He said you're still displacing the same amount
of weight on the bridge because of the force used to catch and throw
the balls--or something like that. Seriously write that one in, it
would be really cool to see them try it.
Cate
popstar_dave
OK, I think I understand now. You were considering "juggling fire" and
"appropriate handling of fuel" to be two different issues. In my head,
they're one and the same.
And I can also recognise the point that it's the clients, not the public
that need to be told that fire juggling can be performed safely and
responsibly. You want the public to think that you're about to burst into
flames at any second!
popstar_dave
I'd imagine that it wouldn't be true. Imagine if you weighed 70kg and
were standing on a bridge that could only support 75kg. If someone then
dropped a 5kg ball down from a helicopter 20 meters above you to catch,
would the force that you apply on the bridge go straight from 70kg to
75kg, and the bridge would hold? Or would it exceed 75kg for a while as
you decelerated the ball from it's falling speed to a stable state, and
the bridge would break? I'd suggest that the latter would be the case and
the bridge would fail with the excess force required to slow/stop the fall
of the ball.
Dave
Little Paul
>
> There's no reason to go round-and-round on this point,
I've held back on joining in on this, but I think I've now got my head
around the argument - so I'm going to offer to try and clear things
up.
> but it's a matter
> of knowing the true risks involved. I don't want to put words in John's
> mouth, but he was trying to say that clients worry about fire too much and
> don't know the true and false dangers. And, I think John was saying that
> juggling fire is not dangerous at all. Juggling fire will not set anything
> on fire unless you try real hard.
Juggling fire is perfectly safe. While the torches are being juggled,
they pose very little risk. They're in the air, they're nowhere near
an external fuel source. They're not going to do any damage to
anything.
The problems come when the torches are not being juggled.
A dropped torch can easily roll. All it takes is for it to land on,
or roll over to a fuel source with a sufficiently low flash point.
This fuel source doesn't have to be your store of torch fuel, it
could be a curtain, a piece of scenery, a woman in the audience
wearing too much hair spray, or a chav wearing a shellsuit.
A torch held aloft without taking account of decorations hung near
the performance area is also a risk.
Wearing flammable clothing whilst torch juggling is also a risk. I
once set fire to a jumper I was wearing whilst torch juggling. I
was stupid enough not to check the fibre content before lighting
up - it had a significant quantity of polyester in it. It's only
the tshirt I was wearing that saved me from some potentially nasty
burns.
An inappropriately handled fuel store is also a problem. As is
using an inappropriate fuel with a low flash-point. (Without
taking precautions appropriate to the fuel)
Now, you're well within your rights to say "but those aren't *really*
problems, we all know how to avoid them"
Well, you're half right.
They're all valid risks. Not every venue is as careful about fireproofing
the scenery/decorations as they could be. Not every performer is as
vigilant about making sure their costume is carefully fireproofed. Not
every performer is always as aware of their surroundings as they could be.
They're all avoidable by a competent performer.
However, does the venue know you're a competent performer? If you
can't convince them of that, they're right to place the safety of
their punters above the value of having a fire show.
You can do your bit to convince them that you're competent. You can
back things up by producing risk assessments, having fire specific
insurance cover, having a reassuringly professional attitude etc.
I know of several performers who state on their promotional material,
contracts etc that if they turn up to do the gig and they deem the
venue/weather unsuitable for a fire show - they won't do the fire show.
This sort of attitude will do more to persuade the client than
stamping your feet and saying "it's 100% safe - no one has ever
died because of a fire show" - that's just naive.
At the end of the day, if you've been approached to do a fire show,
and are willing to act professionally - you shouldn't encounter
any problems.
If you're booked to do any other form of show, and the client says
"I'd prefer you to cut out the fire" - You should be professional
enough to handle that, and replace the fire with something else.
Little Paul
>
> At the end of the day, if you've been approached to do a fire show,
> and are willing to act professionally - you shouldn't encounter
> any problems.
>
> If you're booked to do any other form of show, and the client says
> "I'd prefer you to cut out the fire" - You should be professional
> enough to handle that, and replace the fire with something else.
Damnit, I knew there was another point I forgot to mention.
The clients "please don't use fire" request may not always be made
on safety grounds. The client may or may not be in a position to
communicate this reason though. They may have been told by the
venue owner "no fire" without being given the reason. When pushed,
they may come out with the only reason they can think of - "it's
too dangerous"
It's not their fault, poor lambs. Event organising isn't always
a stress free profession.
As an example, I've worked in venues with sensitive smoke detectors
that can't be turned off. It wasn't a juggling performance (we
were running a disco for a formal dinner) - we weren't allowed to
use a smoke machine.
During testing earlier in the day, even our haze machine set the
alarms off. A haze machine is like a smoke machine but generates
a barely visible haze - just enough to show up light beams but
be otherwise invisible.
In such venues, just lighting up the torches would cause a world
of pain for the client - they'd have to evacuate, and explain the
situation to the venue owner. From their point of view, "no fire"
is much *much* simpler.
I've also worked in venues that have "listed interiors" - these
are interiors which are of significant historical value and as
such are protected by law. The venue owners have been rightly
precious about anything which may damage the interior decor. I
feel they're within their rights to put a potential risk of
smoke damage down as their "no fire" reason.
I guess my point was that "no fire!" doesn't always equate to
"we're scared you might burn the place down"
-Paul
PS - that disco gig? It was probably a good job we didn't use
the smoke machine. One of our dimmer racks caught fire due
to an electrical fault. Hurrah!
popstar_dave
>
> On 2007-03-28, Little Paul <use...@lpbk.net> wrote:
> >
> > At the end of the day, if you've been approached to do a fire show,
> > and are willing to act professionally - you shouldn't encounter
> > any problems.
> >
> > If you're booked to do any other form of show, and the client says
> > "I'd prefer you to cut out the fire" - You should be professional
> > enough to handle that, and replace the fire with something else.
>
>
> -Paul
> PS - that disco gig? It was probably a good job we didn't use
> the smoke machine. One of our dimmer racks caught fire due
> to an electrical fault. Hurrah!
And did that set off the super-sensitive smoke alarms and cause an
evacuation?
Little Paul
> Little Paul wrote:
>> PS - that disco gig? It was probably a good job we didn't use
>> the smoke machine. One of our dimmer racks caught fire due
>> to an electrical fault. Hurrah!
>
> And did that set off the super-sensitive smoke alarms and cause an
> evacuation?
Hell yeah.
Mangatang
>
> I'd imagine that it wouldn't be true. Imagine if you weighed 70kg and
> were standing on a bridge that could only support 75kg. If someone then
> dropped a 5kg ball down from a helicopter 20 meters above you to catch,
> would the force that you apply on the bridge go straight from 70kg to
> 75kg, and the bridge would hold? Or would it exceed 75kg for a while as
> you decelerated the ball from it's falling speed to a stable state, and
> the bridge would break? I'd suggest that the latter would be the case and
> the bridge would fail with the excess force required to slow/stop the fall
> of the ball.
>
Bingo! Even throwing the weight up from the bridge would exert more force
than the weight just being held. Force = Mass * Acceleration. Throwing
the weight up and catching the weight each require acceleration, which
applies force on the bridge. It's not just the mass of the weight, but
the downward force it exerts on the bridge.
It would be neat to see the downward force exerted on the ground while
juggling heavy objects, plotted versus time. I would expect to see spikes
during each throw and catch and low points in between.
Along with this riddle and a few others mentioned in this thread, I'm
going to submit a list of juggling-type myths to the show. I hope they
can find something cool to do with them.
Mangatang
what you think.
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9701967776/m/1211921188
If you have any other ideas, reply to that thread. The more attention it
gets, the more likely that someone will notice it and maybe use it in
their show.
Stallie
> Bingo! Even throwing the weight up from the bridge would exert more force
> than the weight just being held. Force = Mass * Acceleration. Throwing
> the weight up and catching the weight each require acceleration, which
> applies force on the bridge. It's not just the mass of the weight, but
> the downward force it exerts on the bridge.
Damn physisits always turning fun into an equation
Stallie