Busting MythBusters… again.
NoEinstein
experiments. The one which raising my ire, today, is the supposed
‘urban legend’ that a bug can hit a person, who is riding fast on a
motorcycle, hard enough to kill him.
The experiments that were presented used some sort of “pressure plate”
with wire leads. The plate appeared to be made of aluminum and was
about 6” x 12”. A similar plate on the back formed a sandwich,
supposedly, capable of measuring the pounds of force of impacting
objects.
The first insect tested was an ordinary house fly. With the
motorcycle traveling 85 mph, the fly, which was suspended on what
looked like a piece of spaghetti, ’impacted’ with 10 pounds of force.
The latter measurement is impossible from so many directions as to be
laughable. First, that aluminum plate, traveling in air at 85 mph
will experience a wind pressure of at least 10 pounds. I’m basing
that on the 20 pound per square foot wind load design required by
building codes for the Piedmont Region of SC. The second huge error
relative to that most suspect… “pressure plate”, is this: No force can
be measured until the INERTIA of the entire plate has been overcome.
Seeing the plate being hefted, I’d say it weighed at least two pounds.
I calculate the weight of a house fly as follows: Approximately (2)
flies can be forced into one cubic centimeter. And those flies weigh
about .9 as much as a similar amount of water. So, one house fly
would weigh: 62.4 pounds per cubic foot wt. of water / 1728 cubic
inches / cu foot = .0361111 lbs. divided by 16.387064 cc / cu. inch. /
2 flies times .9 specific gravity = .0001 pounds. In order to
overcome the ’minimum’ one pound inertia of the suspect “pressure
plate”, the fly would have to impact with a force 10,000 times the
mass of the fly. At such point, the pressure plate… “might” begin
registering a minute impact force from the splattered fly.
Traveling 85 mph, which is 5280 feet per mph, is 448,800 feet per
hour, which is 124.66666 feet per second. The latter velocity,
divided by 32.174 feet per second, which is the ‘g’ datum velocity,
yields: 3.874764 gs. The later value, when substituted into the
velocity-increment-proportional MOMENTUM equation, would yield an
impact force of .0003874 pounds. The later true impact force is
hardly enough to overcome the minimum one pound inertia of the front
part of the pressure plate. Have you readers started laughing, yet?
The next test MythBusters ran involved a cicada estimated to weigh 100
times more than the fly. If the latter weight was true, and the very,
very, very suspect pressure plate had the ‘10 pound force’ of the fly
correct, the cicada should have impacted with a force of 1,000 lbs.
But the measured value was, like, 36 pounds. Not a soul on
Mythbusters knew enough about science to then throw the nothing-but-a-
fraud piece-of-junk pressure plate into the scrap metal bin!
Subsequent tests with a beetle replica weighing about .5 pounds, and
shot from an air cannon at 200 mph, caused a force on the plate of,
like, 400 pounds— which a medical expert had said wouldn’t kill a
young and healthy person. For the record, if the initial “fly”
pressure of impact was 10 pounds, the .5 lb. beetle traveling 200 mph
should have impacted with a force of 4.56 pounds. Their junk pressure
plate missed the mark by a factor of 8,800 percent! And no one on
MythBusters batted-an-eye.
Several years ago, I offered MythBusters a chance at redemption by
having them replicate, at larger scale, my invalidation of Coriolis’s
KE = ½ mv^2—which the show cites, with regularity, talking about
impact “forces” being in… “foot-pounds”. If that (error of the units)
were true, then why is it that the fly impacts with a (laugh!) force
of 10 pounds, rather than with the show’s normal nomenclature of “10
foot-pounds”? Can anyone besides me detect the science shallowness of
those people?
If any of you know where I can find literature on that most bogus
pressure measuring device, please tell me. Such fraud should not be
allowed on the naïve buying public!
Respectfully submitted,
NoEinstein
AKA John A. Armistead
__________
Eric Gisse
> Science isn’t well-served by poorly-conceived and illogically-measured
> experiments.
[...]
> Several years ago, I offered MythBusters a chance at redemption by
> having them replicate, at larger scale, my invalidation of Coriolis’s
> KE = ½ mv^2 [...]
Androcles
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5de2c156-a7f0-43c4...@c13g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 8, 8:11 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Science isn’t well-served by poorly-conceived and illogically-measured
> experiments.
[...]
======================
[...]
--
Test of GR.
Synchronize two vacuum enclosed identical horizontal light clocks
side-by-side and leave to run for 6 months in two identical chest
freezers (for environmental control). Note any relative drift.
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif>
Place one horizontal light clock at the top of the Burj Khalifa
<http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/>
and leave the other at the base. Leave to run for 6 months.
Bring the clocks together again, note any relative drift.
If the clocks DO read the same count (with drift allowed) then NIST
got it wrong, there was no time dilation due to altitude difference.
<http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm>
If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to
time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a
universal constant.
<http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c>
Either way, NIST are useless yankee wankers and WRONG.
NoEinstein
I've tried, and failed, to get to see the link that you gave. Since my
present post relates to a slightly different area of mechanics than
I'm usually commenting on, I would be interested in seeing if you, the
'learned' physicist, might agree with me for once. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Folks: While waiting for Google to show the present new post in my
posting profile, I realized that there is a factor greater than the
simple inertia (of the measuring apparatus) that impacting objects
must overcome before an impacting force can be measured. Before
deciding to use soft clay as the most simple and direct KE measuring
experiment, I actually constructed three very precise, but unworkable
devices. One involved measuring the stretch in a tensile coiled
spring caused by a falling object; another used a rigid teeter-totter
pivoting on the edge of a nearly frictionless razor blade; and another
used two 1" diameter steel balls, suspended in two sheet rubber
membranes. In the latter I had hoped to determine, by subsequent
electrical contact between the balls, when the inertia of the top ball
had been matched by a falling ball. The precision needed for the
alignment of the balls made the latter concept unpractical. My final
experiment, beyond the clay embedment one, involved dropping a small
clevis pin head-to-head with a larger clevis pin. When the KE of the
former, matched the inertia of the latter, the two pins stayed in
contact long enough to dampen (CLUNK!) the ringing tone of the lighter
pin. That point of matching KE and inertia was exactly predicted by
my: KE = a/g (m) + v /32.174 (m).
Corolis’s KE = ½ mv^2 greaty exaggerates the KE in the long run, but
underestimates it during the first second of fall. That is because
all falling objects have an initial KE = the object’s mass, before
there is any movement at all! The a/g (m) is that part of the KE
value which I have determined to be above and beyond the MOMENTUM
portion. The traditional, but ERRANT, way of writing the momentum
equation is… = weight/32.174 x velocity. Writing such with the
’proportionality’ correction for the mass (so as to be in SLUGS)
causes the UNITS to be wrongly expressed as “pound - feet/sec”. As
I’ve often explained, such units are ludicrous. My v/32.174 (m) puts
the proportionality correction on the VELOCITY, where it belongs, so
that the KE, or force delivery potential, is expressed in simple
POUNDS.
A killer in those three failed KE experiments, hinted above, was the
INERTIA of the components. That is the same thing that KILLED
MythBuster’s bug impact experiments. My supposition is that the
pressure measuring device is a simple plastic sheet which produces
electricity when compressed. That devise is for measuring STATIC
pressures, not dynamic impact pressures! Additionally, the bug would
have to overcome not just the unit inertia of the plate, but the total
MOMENTUM of the plate traveling 85 mph!
An interesting future experiment for MythBusters would be to show that
the destructive effects of an auto hitting an at rest mass (say 100
pounds) with its bumper will be LESS if the car’s bumper is traveling
much faster. That causes the inertia of the bumper to counter the
inertia of the mass. The mass should then be more on the loosing end!
Readers thoughts are welcomed! — NoEinstein —.
NoEinstein
Folks: I've stated some great science on this post. My findings are
open for reader comments or corrections. Google has just recently
cleared year old posts, and I'm hoping posts like this one can start
showing up in my posting profile so others can read what I'm writing.
*** I would greatly appreciate getting reader comments so that these
things I've spent so much time considering and then writing about can
be shared with others. Thanks! — NoEinstein —
Eric Gisse
Have you noticed that nobody really gives a damn about what you
think?
You've been continually addressing post after post in your own thread
to "Folks", yet only a handful of people ever even bother to respond
to you. Myself included. Of those very few people I am yet to see even
one positive response to you.
That plus your oh so fundamental misunderstanding between the function
of USENET , which you are using, and a blog, which is what you
actually want.
!
I have an idea!
Why don't you go to blogspot.com, make a blog, and put all your rants
and shit there in a nice easily accessible form? Let everyone here
know that you are moving to a medium where you have actual editorial
control over responses, and see if even one person follows you.
Or would that be too much information? I wonder if your ego could
truly handle the fact that you are just another clown here, as opposed
to that little messiah complex you got going on.
NoEinstein
Dear Eric: You had to have noticed that I didn't solicit a "positive"
response from you or others, just "a" response or two to get the
discussion started. So, even in your obvious, negative schizophrenic
state you are helping that cause. Most who reply on the various posts
do so to elevate their low self esteem. You majored in physics for
the same reason that Einstein purported to be a physicist: To make
people THINK you are smart. Actually, Einstein was a MORON. And you
didn't have the resourcefulness to complete your major in physics. I
can say, with certainty, that you have major inferiority complexes,
Eric. One of those is your likely small statue, which you try to
compensate for by putting others down. The one time you actually
discussed science, I checked your analytical abilities by asking you
to calculate the "side angle" of a pyramid that's on a square base
with the four points of the square and the top tip of the pyramid
fitting within a hemisphere. You missed getting that angle calculated
correctly, and you have been putting me down ever since.
At no time have I desired to screen out anyone disagreeing with me.
I'm interested in explaining my New Science, not having recreational,
shallow conversations. Typical for you, you attack the messenger
without ever stating anything about science which could get you shot
down. You are a jealous science might-have-been, Eric. I would
welcome having you prove me wrong by having you be bold enough to
actually assess anything I've said about the MythBusters show I
outlined. No one is 100% wrong, Eric, not even you. Get back onto
the discuss-science track or start your own blog. Apparently, you've
gotten little satisfaction blogging on one of those. I feel for you.
— NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> > > > > times more than the fly. If the latter weight was true, and the very,
> > > > > very, very suspect pressure plate had the ‘10 pound force’ of the fly
> > > > > correct, the cicada should have impacted with a force of 1,000 lbs.
> > > > > But the measured value was, like, 36 pounds. Not a soul on
> > > > > fraud piece-of-junk pressure plate into the scrap metal bin!
>
> > > > > Subsequent tests with a beetle replica weighing about .5 pounds, and
> > > > > shot from an air cannon at 200 mph, caused a force on the plate of,
> > > > > like, 400 pounds— which a medical expert had said wouldn’t kill a
> > > > > young and healthy person. For the record, if the initial “fly”
> > > > > pressure of impact was 10 pounds, the .5 lb. beetle traveling 200 mph
> > > > > should have impacted with a force of 4.56 pounds. Their junk pressure
> > > > > plate missed the mark by a factor of 8,800 percent! And no one on
> > > > >MythBustersbatted-an-eye.
>
NoEinstein
>
> read more »
Earth to Eric Gisse; Earth to Eric Gisse; Where are you? — NoEinstein
—
NoEinstein
> > > > > times more than the fly. If the latter weight was true, and the very,
> > > > > very, very suspect pressure plate had the ‘10 pound force’ of the fly
> > > > > correct, the cicada should have impacted with a force of 1,000 lbs.
> > > > > But the measured value was, like, 36 pounds. Not a soul on
> > > > > fraud piece-of-junk pressure plate into the scrap metal bin!
>
> > > > > Subsequent tests with a beetle replica weighing about .5 pounds, and
> > > > > shot from an air cannon at 200 mph, caused a force on the plate of,
> > > > > like, 400 pounds— which a medical expert had said wouldn’t kill a
> > > > > young and healthy person. For the record, if the initial “fly”
> > > > > pressure of impact was 10 pounds, the .5 lb. beetle traveling 200 mph
> > > > > should have impacted with a force of 4.56 pounds. Their junk pressure
> > > > > plate missed the mark by a factor of 8,800 percent! And no one on
>
> > > > > Several years ago, I offeredMythBustersa chance at redemption by