I believe that is why they call it MYTHBUSTERS. Ideas and myths that are compelling, interesting or outlandish should be tested and not shelved. Nobody here is an expert in everything. Some are pretty darn smart in most fields, but I contend every question, notion, and inquiry has validity and needs explanation, which you do not provide. On your next post, please enlighten me with your rebuttal.

You can think whatever you want, but you are completely wrong; Everyone with a Scientific background knows it and neither the MBs or anyone else are that interested on proving this again when we all know the outcome. Have a nice day.

The biggest issue I'm seeing in the sonic boom myth is that as much as Jamie and Adam know, they've shown time and time again that they do not know much about glass.

There are two requirements for glass to break: tension (not compression) and a flaw. Without the two together, glass can't break. That's that.

For a minor flaw you need more tension for a major flaw you need less. When MB breaks glass with sound waves, what's required is that the glass goes into a harmonic and in the flexing stage of distortion, IF there is a flaw, the glass will break.

When I watched the episode where they tried to break glass with sound waves, the thing that was most amusing was that they kept on changing the glasses and swapped them out with new glasses. The ironic thing was that by bringing out new glasses, they were not changing the dynamic that they needed a flaw. New glasses (if properly packed) do not have flaws big enough to make the failure an easy proposition. If they had obtained wine glasses from any restaurant, there would have been more than enough flaws on the surface to have caused the shattering with much less force. The whole process would have been much easier.

In the sonic boom episode there were two conflicting issues: sheet glass (the windows) that was held on all edges and lose glass that was open to the air (e.g., a wine glass)

When the window glass was acted upon by a major change in air (the advancing shock wave), it flexed. If there was sufficient flexing near a flaw, the window could break. If not, no breakage.

The wine glasses (and all) presented a completely different dynamic: when the shock wave hit, the compression of the air was completely uniform all around the glass (inside and out) and by this there could be no distortion and therefore no tension. Even if they had wine glasses with major flaws, since there was no tension, there could be no failure. In the same vein, if they had a sealed glass container, the change in pressure would be from the outside and glass breaks by tension, not compression. Again, no chance for failure.

I've been in the glass industry for over 30 years and have written books on the subject. If anyone has any questions, you can contact me at gcoyne@calstatela.edu

Best,

Gary Coyne