I think that finding the Caddyshack sceen busted can't be closed yet. Grass that was at the height of grass that was on a green wasn't used and from what I saw on the TV the way the ball was placed on the grass looked like the grass could have kept the ball from rolling in the fist place. Also if the cup wasn't place under the actual ground height the ball coud have been stuck on the side of the cup, I couldn't tell if this was taken into account or not. All golfers will tell you that longer grass can act like a tee and keep a ball from rolling all together. I'm not saying that this won't end up busted but I think the test needs to be more accurate.
I agree that the caddyshack one was not done correctly. Golf greens are cut really short and they roll really fast. It wouldn't take that much of a bump to knock the ball in.
ok driving blind was confirm wonder if they used a garmon or tom tom i know it dont have pin point turing wont hurt to give a shot maybe if was a way to program it with Grant im sure they can figure something out
In the Caddyshack explosion segment, I think there are a couple more variables that may not have been taken into account.
1. Soil composition Different types of soil may conduct the compression waves of the explosion more efficiently.
2. The height/depth of the water table Again, water near the surface of the soil may affect the conduction of the explosion.
The test with the lightning and the metal vs plastic spikes was interesting. I'm not sure that with 10 trials the results were conclusive. Another variable that was not addressed is ground strikes of lightning that are conducted across the surface to golfers.
Anyhoo... I absolutely LOVE Mythbusters and I try to watch it any time I find it on. You folks produce a fascinating, educational, anf highly entertaining show. Keep up the awesome work!
Oh, come on guys. That ball was leaning so far over the edge of the cup, they could have just stomped hard on the ground by that ball and it would have gone in. How long the grass was really wasn't going to make any difference at all at that point.
The bit about the pumper hose is a good point though. I hadn't remembered that part of the movie till celamora mentioned it, but he was indeed pumping something (gasoline, one would expect) down the holes.
As far as the lightning strike is concerned, my wife mentioned the same thing. "The grass should be wet, so it can conduct a near miss". Realistically though, there isn't going to BE a near miss, because the golfer is going to be the tallest thing there for the lightning to hit. Unless he's standing under a tree, anyway...
Echo mdavid's response this test was done with no thought and planning. If the hole was cut right and the cup placed correctly and putting turf was used. The results may differ. A vibration transducer could have been put close or next to the cup to get some real data. Maybe a simple pendulum near the cup with a camera showing any movement at the time of the explosion might have given some result; I am surprised that all the effort to present such a myth was not done more scientifically
Regarding the tree being 90% air... the conclusion was completely wrong. If only 24% of the balls went through the tree at normal distance that DOES NOT mean that the tree isn't 90% air. The only way that experiment would be conclusive is if a tree was only 2 dimensional. If they were shooting through a 10 x 10 grid with only 10 random spaces filled in... it would be appropriate. But a tree has a 3rd dimension... But a tree is more like a series of 10- 10 x 10 grids lined up with each having only 10 random spaces filled in. That would emulate a 90% air tree, and I guarantee 90 of 100 balls wouldn't go through. I wouldn't be surprised if it was reduced to 24% or so. Concluding that a tree is not 90% air was wrong based upon this experiment.
Also, a robot that fires at the same angle every time doesn't emulate a golfer. The robot is going to fire at the same small part of the tree every time, throwing off the variation that a golfer would have, high, low, left, right, straight.
I would like to see this one retested with a mock up tree made of a 10 x 10 x 10 grid of pvc. The appropriate number of cubes could randomly be filled, and then fired at...
i don't believe it. am i really getting to post a response??? this website has ish-ewwwwws. anyway where do i begin, and how many characters do i get? let's start with the tree is 90% air thing. You guys must be joking, how can you make the statement that since a tree is 90% air, then 90% of the balls will go through undeflected? clakr makes a point with the 3 dimension thing, but you don't even need to go that far. The two-dimensional net at the back of the driving range is 90% air, maybe closer to 95%. It will catch every golf ball hit at it BECAUSE THE VOIDS ARE SMALLER THAN THE BALL!!. I think Grant, Karie (sp) and Tory are taking stupid pills. OK, now Caddyshack. I will go out on a limb and say this is not busted, but rather completely confirmed without doing a single test. Yeah fellow viewers, that was not a regulation green the ball was teetering on, it was a pasture. Furthermore, the ball appeared to be settled against the side of a slighty raised cup. Look, anyone who plays golf knows that every so often the ball finds a home right at the edge of the cup, almost staring into the hole. You can't believe that it doesn't fall. In fact, some pro golfers will tell you that they've seen a player "help" the ball into the hole merely by standing so that they block the sunlight over the ball. Grass stands up when in the sunlight, and lays down slightly when shaded. It's like comparing the equilibrium of a ball resting in a valley, and one at the apex of a hill. The one resting on the summit would be moved by an explosion, a slight breeze, maybe even yodeling.-Ok, i'm almost done. This has nothing to do with tonight's episode, it's from one of your quizzes. Just need to vent and don't want to look for another forum only to have to put my password in again and check my gmail account that i don't use. You posed the question that "Hot water freezes more quickly than cold water?" I hesitated to answer because i know this is a poorly posed question. Do you mean that water from your hot water tap freezes more quickly than water from your cold water tap, or merely water of a warm temperature freezes more quickly than cool water of the same purity. Ok, I've tipped my hand. I answered "true," hot water from your tap can freeze more quickly than cold. Here's why: as your water sits in the hot water tank waiting to heat, perhaps overnight, or for days if you don't shower or do your dishes, chlorine and other minerals in the water settle out or dissipate essentially purifying the water. So that means cold water drawn from your tap could contain more solutes than the hot. If you made it through 9th grade physics, you may have learned about boiling point elevation and freezing point depression (referring to solutions). So since the cold water from your tap has dissolved more solute, it may have a lower freezing point which your freezer has trouble reaching. Heat transfer slows down exponentially as the temperature of an object approaches ambient. The cold/water hot water thing is like comparing whether pure water or salt water will freeze first, or water and an antifreeze mixture. Anyway, I'll wrap it up. I missed that question, they said it was false, and that the starting temperature of the water has no effect on the time it takes to freeze. I will need to confront my Heat Transfer teacher about his slander. The starting temperature certainly does affect the time it takes something to reach it's freezing temperature. Don't believe it. Take two samples of water of equal purity, one at 34 degrees and the other at room temp, slap 'em in your fridgedaire and see which one ends up frosty first.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mod_ivy,
i don't believe it. am i really getting to post a response??? this carrot has ish-ewwwwws (avoiding trigger words, mean i-net address). anyway where do i begin, and how many characters do i get? let's start with the tree is 90% air thing. You guys must be joking, how can you make the statement that since a tree is 90% air, then 90% of the balls will go through undeflected? clakr makes a point with the 3 dimension thing, but you don't even need to go that far. The two-dimensional net at the back of the driving range is 90% air, maybe closer to 95%. It will catch every golf ball hit at it BECAUSE THE VOIDS ARE SMALLER THAN THE BALL!!. I think Larry, Mo, and Lady Curly must be taking silly pills (again, this is an edited version so they will allow to post). OK, now Caddyshack. I will go out on a limb and say this is not busted, but rather completely confirmed without doing a single test. Yeah fellow viewers, that was not a regulation green the ball was teetering on, it was a pasture. Furthermore, the ball appeared to be settled against the side of a slighty raised cup. Look, anyone who plays golf knows that every so often the ball finds a home right at the edge of the cup, almost staring into the hole. You can't believe that it doesn't fall. In fact, some pro golfers will tell you that they've seen a player "help" the ball into the hole merely by standing so that they block the sunlight over the ball. Bent grass stands up when in the sunlight, and lays down slightly when shaded. It's like comparing the equilibrium of a ball resting in a valley, and one at the apex of a hill. The one resting on the summit would be moved by an explosion, a slight breeze, maybe even yodeling.-Ok, i'm almost done. This has nothing to do with tonights episode, it's from one of your quizzes. Just need to vent and don't won't to look for another forum only to have to put my password in again and check my gmail account that i don't use. You posed the question that "Hot water freezes more quickly than cold water?" I hesitated to answer because i know this is a poorly posed question. Do you mean that water from your hot water tap freezes more quickly than water from your cold water tap, or merely water of a warmer temperature freezes more quickly than cooler water of the same purity. Ok, I've tipped my hand. I answered "true," hot water from your tap can freeze more quickly than cold. Here's why: as your water sits in the hot water tank waiting to heat, perhaps overnight, or for days if you don't shower or do your dishes, chlorine and other minerals in the water settle out or dissipate essentially purifying the water. So that means cold water drawn from your tap could contain more solutes than the hot. If you made it through 9th grade physics, you may have learned about boiling point elevation and freezing point depression (referring to solutions). So since the cold water from your tap has dissolved more solute, it may have a lower freezing point which your freezer has trouble reaching. Heat transfer slows down exponentially as the temperature of an object approaches ambient. The cold/water hot water thing is like comparing whether pure water or salt water will freeze first, or water and and antifreeze mixture. Anyway, I'll wrap it up. I missed that question, they said it was false, and that the starting temperature of the water has no effect on the time it takes to freeze. The starting temperature certainly does affect the time it takes something to reach it's freezing temperature. Don't believe it. Take two samples of water of equal purity, one at 34 degrees and the other at room temp, slap 'em in your fridgedaire and see which one ends up frosty first. Send all complaints about my arrogance and accuracy to the gmail account i don't use: that's jlerari@gmail.com
Blind driving is no myth, in Estonia (right next to Finland) there's a guy who not only is blind and likes to drive but does so drunk - a blind drunk driver!
[QUOTE]Originally posted by clakr: Regarding the tree being 90% air... the conclusion was completely wrong. If only 24% of the balls went through the tree at normal distance that DOES NOT mean that the tree isn't 90% air. The only way that experiment would be conclusive is if a tree was only 2 dimensional. If they were shooting through a 10 x 10 grid with only 10 random spaces filled in... it would be appropriate. But a tree has a 3rd dimension... But a tree is more like a series of 10- 10 x 10 grids lined up with each having only 10 random spaces filled in. That would emulate a 90% air tree, and I guarantee 90 of 100 balls wouldn't go through. I wouldn't be surprised if it was reduced to 24% or so. Concluding that a tree is not 90% air was wrong based upon this experiment.
Also, a robot that fires at the same angle every time doesn't emulate a golfer. The robot is going to fire at the same small part of the tree every time, throwing off the variation that a golfer would have, high, low, left, right, straight.QUOTE]
Exactly! I didn't see your post until after I posted. I said the same thing about 3D use of 90%, rather than using a 2D measurement. I, too, think the amount of space the tree would take up in a 2D sense is more in the lines of 20 - 30%, which would be about the number of balls they were able to hit thru the tree.
Originally posted by jlerari: i don't believe it. am i really getting to post a response??? this carrot has ish-ewwwwws (avoiding trigger words, mean i-net address). anyway where do i begin, and how many characters do i get? let's start with the tree is 90% air thing. You guys must be joking, how can you make the statement that since a tree is 90% air, then 90% of the balls will go through undeflected? clakr makes a point with the 3 dimension thing, but you don't even need to go that far. The two-dimensional net at the back of the driving range is 90% air, maybe closer to 95%. It will catch every golf ball hit at it BECAUSE THE VOIDS ARE SMALLER THAN THE BALL!!. I think Larry, Mo, and Lady Curly must be taking silly pills (again, this is an edited version so they will allow to post). OK, now Caddyshack. I will go out on a limb and say this is not busted, but rather completely confirmed without doing a single test. Yeah fellow viewers, that was not a regulation green the ball was teetering on, it was a pasture. Furthermore, the ball appeared to be settled against the side of a slighty raised cup. Look, anyone who plays golf knows that every so often the ball finds a home right at the edge of the cup, almost staring into the hole. You can't believe that it doesn't fall. In fact, some pro golfers will tell you that they've seen a player "help" the ball into the hole merely by standing so that they block the sunlight over the ball. Bent grass stands up when in the sunlight, and lays down slightly when shaded. It's like comparing the equilibrium of a ball resting in a valley, and one at the apex of a hill. The one resting on the summit would be moved by an explosion, a slight breeze, maybe even yodeling.-Ok, i'm almost done. This has nothing to do with tonights episode, it's from one of your quizzes. Just need to vent and don't won't to look for another forum only to have to put my password in again and check my gmail account that i don't use. You posed the question that "Hot water freezes more quickly than cold water?" I hesitated to answer because i know this is a poorly posed question. Do you mean that water from your hot water tap freezes more quickly than water from your cold water tap, or merely water of a warmer temperature freezes more quickly than cooler water of the same purity. Ok, I've tipped my hand. I answered "true," hot water from your tap can freeze more quickly than cold. Here's why: as your water sits in the hot water tank waiting to heat, perhaps overnight, or for days if you don't shower or do your dishes, chlorine and other minerals in the water settle out or dissipate essentially purifying the water. So that means cold water drawn from your tap could contain more solutes than the hot. If you made it through 9th grade physics, you may have learned about boiling point elevation and freezing point depression (referring to solutions). So since the cold water from your tap has dissolved more solute, it may have a lower freezing point which your freezer has trouble reaching. Heat transfer slows down exponentially as the temperature of an object approaches ambient. The cold/water hot water thing is like comparing whether pure water or salt water will freeze first, or water and and antifreeze mixture. Anyway, I'll wrap it up. I missed that question, they said it was false, and that the starting temperature of the water has no effect on the time it takes to freeze. The starting temperature certainly does affect the time it takes something to reach it's freezing temperature. Don't believe it. Take two samples of water of equal purity, one at 34 degrees and the other at room temp, slap 'em in your fridgedaire and see which one ends up frosty first. Send all complaints about my arrogance and accuracy to the gmail account i don't use: that's jlerari@gmail.com
RE: FREEZING WATER - As you mentioned, as all things cool the molecules slow down. Hot water has molecules flying all over the place, touching the edge of the container, thus releasing energy. Cool water molecules are slower and don't touch the sides to release enrgy as fast. This is the reason that no matter how hot somethnig starts out at, it takes the same length of time to freeze (aside from all that chlorine disapation).
Most of my reasons have already been posted...those golf myths were poorly tested and need to be revisited. I can't believe how little effort was taken to think those out and set them up. I want the mythbusters to measure the volume of the area a tree takes up. Then wait till the leaves fall, and measure the volume the branches take up in that space. Tell me what that % is. To think that 90% of golf balls hit would make it through to prove that a tree is only 10% solid is ridiculous. If you took the profile of a tree against a flat surface you would see that in a straight line there is very little room for a golf ball to travel through. Plus golf balls are spinning, rising/falling, hooking and slicing and I have never seen a tree as sparse as that one they used while playing golf for the last 28 years here texas. I wont even start with the Caddyshack explosion...well a little bit...that wasn't a green, the make up of a green on a golf course is multiple layers of different materials...the greens themselves are closly cropped and very smooth, the ball would not be teed up on a tuft of grass.etc etc etc
Originally posted by lauri_t: Blind driving is no myth, in Estonia (right next to Finland) there's a guy who not only is blind and likes to drive but does so drunk - a blind drunk driver!
He has been caught by the police several times but has had no accidents so far. It's a wonder his friends still help him do it...
Also there was a typo in the "newspaper" article... something about a "Finish city" ...its not Finish...it is Finnish
Also as a resident of said city I'd like to know more about this since I've never heard of this piece of news? How long time ago was this? Geert Aartsen sounds like a dutch name?
