http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/MythBusters-Episodes

It's a compilation of all the results from the show. :) Enjoy!

That show is great. :D I particularily enjoyed the catapulted car one.

Interesting stuff.

I respectfully disagree with one of the show's findings. I believe that a cell phone can indeed be the ignition source for a flash fire when filling up with gasoline. I'll see if I can dig up a video that shows it actually happening. It was from a security camera at a gas station. As I recall, this happened less than a year ago.

In the video, the woman is talking on a cell phone while filling her car. There is a flash 'explosion' and she runs. She isn't hurt, and there is no fire. The flash lasts a split second and extinguishes.

Electronic equipment of all kinds can be ignition sources, unless they are specifically designed to be 'intrinsically safe'. There are safety codes, regulations and licensing associated with 'intrinsically safe' electronics. There are also hazard classifications (Class I, Class II etc) for parts of industrial plants that contain combustible hydrocarbons that govern the types of electric and electronic equipment that can be used.

Commercial cell phones are not 'intrinsically safe'.

In my plant, walkie-talkie radios are the main communication link between the control room and operators out in the plant. These radios are registered 'intrinsically safe'. You can't use the ones from Radio Shack :smile: . Flash cameras and cell phones are not allowed in certain parts of the plant.

There are decades of science associated with ignition sources in environments involving hydrocarbon vapors.

Yes, I've read the web-pages debunking the stories of cell-phone use causing vapor ignition while filling up with gasoline.

I thought they had determined that it wasn't the cell phone but instead was a static discharge from the person.

Must try exploding jawbreaker!!!!!!!

Some of the items from Mythbusters should definitely be taken with a grain of salt. Such as the Hollywood gun issue. I've never seen anyone blown away like in the movies, but there is definitely enough of a "punch" in a gunshot to knock a person off their feet (especially with shotguns and deer rifles).

I also thought most of their Jaws tests were kind of flooky.

I don't think they did their research too well. Unfortunately when you realise they havn't busted one myth very well then you worry about the rest too.

Soldiers marching in unison can cause harmonic oscillation in a bridge and cause it collapse. Busted/Plausible There were some difficulties in testing this myth conclusively. But when revisited it was shown to be plausible.

A pedestrian footbridge was built in London a couple of years ago and it began oscillating as soon as the first people used it. It was closed after one just day and restructured. It's more than plausible that a bridge could collapse from harmonic oscillation.

It's more than plausible that a bridge could collapse from harmonic oscillation.
That's exactly what happened to the old Tacoma Narrows Bridge (http://www.glendale-h.schools.nsw.edu.au/faculty_pages/ind_arts_web/bridgeweb/Tacoma_page.htm).

I love Mythbusters. I think they do a pretty good job testing the theories given realitic constraints. Certain things are just very difficult to test. On the bridge example, I think they missed the boat a bit because they used a scaled down bridge. The scale of the bridge would have a large effect on the resonant frequencies of the suspension system. Building a full scale bridge probably wouldn't be feasible.

I thought they had determined that it wasn't the cell phone but instead was a static discharge from the person.

This is correct.

Has anyone else heard of a tractor catching fire under transmission lines? Basicly, a static discharge occurs between the transmission line and the metal gas can. The gas ignites.

Regarding cell phones, gas pumps and static discharges, let me try and explain.

You need three things for a fire, or a flash fire; oxygen, fuel, ignition source.

Your partially empty gas tank has a fuel rich vapor space. When you fill the tank, that vapor leaves the gas tank spout right beside the nozzle you are using. That's the fuel source. Oxygen is in plentiful supply. That leaves only an ignition source.

There are some pretty obvious ignition sources. Matches or a lighter are sources. So is a lit cigarette. Less obvious is a hot muffler/exhaust system, or other hot parts of your vehicle. None of these have sparks. They are hot enough to cause ignition on their own.

The other common ignition source is a spark. Your car uses spark plugs to ignite gasoline in the engine. The car battery and other electrical systems have the potential to cause sparks. That's why your engine should be turned off when fueling your vehicle. These are dynamic sparks (not static electricity).

(Ooops... will finish this post later. Have something urgent to do.)

Ok... continuing on.

Finally, we get to static electricity. This can also be an ignition source.

There's a case I personally know about. A truck driver was delivering used lube oil to a re-refinery in Toronto. This plant removed volatile hydrocarbons from lube oil. The lube oil would then be blended back into finished oil. You never knew what junk people would dump into lube oil. It could be very volatile. The truck driver opened up the top hatch of the tanker he was driving. There was an explosion and he died. Investigation attributed the explosion to static electricity from his metal rimmed glasses. They were found in the bottom of the tanker and fell in just prior to the explosion. Metal rimmed glasses are now prohibited when inspecting hydrocarbon filled tankers.

Liquid flow can also cause static electricity. When you fill up your gas tank, the flow of gasoline can build up a charge on the metal gas nozzle. That's why all nozzles/filling hoses are grounded. If your gasoline station is careless, and the nozzle isn't grounded, a flash fire is just waiting to happen.

You can get static discharge from combing your hair with a plastic comb. Can you imagine the sign at the pump -- "Combing hair not allowed while fueling"... lol.

For gasoline ignition to take place while filling your tank, the ignition source must be close to the nozzle. A few feet away, and the concentration of gasoline vapors aren't high enough to flash.

On to cell phones. Cell phones have a battery. Can you take a battery and cause a spark? I know I can very easily. If the battery is properly installed (tight connection), and the appliance is carefully sealed, then ignition is very unlikely. As such, it's very unlikely that a cell phone will result in gasoline ignition. Nevertheless, it can happen. The cell phone can be faulty, or poorly constructed. With the battery as the energy source, you may get a spark, and if you have enough gasoline vapor and oxygen, you will get a flash fire.

A spark from a cell phone battery is dynamic electricty, not static electricity (unless you vigorosly rub the plastic casing of the phone and cause a static buildup).

I can just see new ads from the 'static-cling' crowd. "Use our product on your laundry and avoid explosions when filling your car."

(Ooops... will finish this post later. Have something urgent to do.)

Forget to turn your car off while fueling? :)

Thought that this was interesting:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20050926/quicksand.html?source=rss

The Mythbusters busted the killer quicksand from the movies, and physicists in the Netherlands agree, but they added that while the trapped "cowboy" won't drown, it might take him some time to get out...

<i>The dense sand so clumps around the lower limbs that just to haul out a foot requires a force of 100,000 Newtons, about the same as that needed to lift a medium-sized car. </i>

So you mean... the lightning sand in "The Princess Bride" wasn't true? Man! I am SO bummed! Next I suppose they'll say ROUS's don't exist either.

ROUS's do exist. They just aren't as dangerous as hollywood would have us believe:
http://www.rebsig.com/capybara/

Capybara aren't that bad (plus it's neat to watch the caimans and snakes eat them!)
Have you ever seen a <a href="http://www.nutria.com/site.php">Nutria</a>? First time I saw one, it was in a small community pond - looked like a beaver with a rat's tail. Icky.

I've heard of Nutria, but I thought they were more like weasels. They look a lot like beavers.

Only problem with those 2 ROUSes, they tend not to attack and devour people!

They aren't, but the media loves to distort everything!