Re: [Phys-l] Mythbusters

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 03/02/2007 04:25 PM, David Appell wrote:
> I'm a science journalist working on an article idea. I was wondering if any of you (high school
> or college) incorporate the Discovery Channel show "Mythbusters" into your physics lessons. Is
> the show popular among your students? Do you discuss topics that appear on the show, and the
> science content behind the various projects? That sort of thing....

The shows are popular, some episodes more so than others.
The presenters have an adolescent sense of what is "fun"
(such as blowing stuff up) which naturally appeals to the
child in all of us.  I often refer to them as 12-year-olds
with a budget.

The shows are worth discussing, some episodes more so than
others.

It's a bit of a paradox, because sometimes you want to
discuss the science content, and sometimes you want to
discuss the appalling lack of science content.  It would
be nice to have some sort of "teacher's guide" pointing
out the high points and low points of each episode, not
all of which are obvious.

Overall, there are so many inconsistencies that it is hard
to make very many sweeping generalizations.

1) For starters, as you may have surmised from my recent
postings in another thread, I tend to throw things at the
screen when they say
> > >    We have years of experience that keeps us safe.
> > >    We're what you call "experts".

Aaaarrgghhh!  Do you mean years of experience like Steve Irwin?
Do you mean expertise like Jon Corzine's driver?


2) Moving now from what they /say/ about safety to what they
actually /do/ about it, again the inconsistencies are larger
than the trends.  Sometimes they take safety precautions,
such as traveling to a bomb range and having fire trucks
standing by.  Sometimes, alas, the safety precautions are
not obvious, which leads the audience to underestimate how
dangerous the work is.  What's even worse is that all too
often, they do stuff that is just insanely dangerous, such
as mixing dangerous chemicals without even the most basic
safety arrangements.


3) The show is useful and informative when it comes to
exposing students to a wide range of fabrication techniques:
drilling, milling, welding, gluing, molding, casting, et
cetera.  Too many students these days have no clue how to
actually build stuff.


4) Moving from blue-collar fabrication to engineering and
thence to white-collar science, these guys are *not* rocket
scientists.

4a) Sometimes they pretend to be dumber than they really are,
because sometimes a myth is so wildly incompatible with
physics that it can be ruled out based on a moment's thought,
which would spoil the fun of trying it out.

4b) On the other hand, sometimes they do dumb things because
they don't know any better.  They throw around technical terms
like energy, momentum, force, power, lift, thrust, et cetera,
using them wrongly more often than not.  IMHO this makes it
quite _unhelpful_ for students to watch some episodes.  Students
(like everyone else) learn language by emulating others.  And
whom are they more disposed to emulate, a teacher or a TV star?

Some examples of this can be seen in NeckBusters episode 42.
  http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/11/episode_42_steel_toe_amputatio.html

 -- At one point they are pumping up a 3-liter soda bottle to
  see how much pressure they can achieve.  They are standing
  right next to the thing!  With little or no protection!

  That's right, they're doing a static pressure test with /air/.
  Apparently nobody clued them in about the principle of the
  /hydrostatic/ pressure test.  Definitely not rocket scientists.

 -- Later in the same show, they launched a water-cooler bottle.
  It worked "better" than expected, and everybody was yelling
  "Look out!  Run!" without knowing which way to run.

 -- They did a static pressure test on the water-cooler bottle
  using air!  They seemed surprised that it failed at a lower
  pressure than the soft-drink bottle.  They seemed surprised
  that the boom was loud enough to disturb the neighbors.

 -- All through the show they said they planned to launch
  Kari 40 feet into the air using a cluster of water
  rockets.  I was quite unable to take that seriously,
  but they took it seriously enough to fit Kari with
  various harnesses and make other arrangements.  C'mon
  folks, even if the rocket didn't kill you on the way
  up, how would you like to merely /step/ off a parapet
  40 feet up, with a bunch of rocket casings and junk
  strapped to your back?  Either they're stupid enough to
  think that's OK, or they think the audience is stupid
  enough to think that's OK;  either way it's not the sort
  of message to be giving to students.  (At the very end
  of the show, Kari gets a reprieve ... duh!)

 -- In this episode, as in others, they show not the slightest
  awareness (let alone "expertise") concerning the /stability/
  of their rockets.

  ++ Et cetera.

While we're in the neighborhood, NeckBusters episode 34 is
another one that has some particularly ghastly physics gaffes.
  http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/07/mythbusters_bulletproof_water.html

===============================


All in all, I would say the show is /not/ suitable as a "video
babysitter".  That is, you can't just turn on the show and
hope the kids will grow up to be just like Adam and Jamie.

Instead, I would give it an "R" rating.  Watch it with your
kids, with the understanding that you will have to stop and
explain that some parts are OK to emulate, while other parts
are object lessons in exactly what /not/ to do.

  As a corollary, some parts are object lessons in why kids
  should pay attention in physics class:  There are lots of
  situations where knowing a little bit of physics could have
  saved somebody from a lot of work and/or a lot of danger.


If/when the class has some basic knowledge, you can make a
game of it:  let them watch the show while taking notes.
Ask them to make a "top ten" list of moments that display
 -- ignorance of basic physics, and/or
 -- disregard for safety (out of all proportion as to risk
  versus reward).