'MythBusters' ready to storm fall TV season

Each year, the Discovery Channel show shoots an episode for the network's Shark Week. The results of one of its shark shows, this articulated beast, hangs on the wall at the show's headquarters, M5 Industries, in San Francisco.

(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET)

SAN FRANCISCO--For some of the nearly 100,000 followers of "MythBusters" star Adam Savage's Twitter feed, communicating with him has proven to be more than just your average back-and-forth. For some, it's been a way to submit ideas that he and his Discovery Channel show costars have used for actual episodes.

On October 7, Discovery will begin airing its fall collection of new "MythBusters" episodes, and Savage said that he and costar Jamie Hyneman have taken at least four ideas that have come directly from Twitter users and implemented them on the show.

Among them are exploring the myth that dirty cars are more fuel efficient than clean ones; one that addresses the reality of a YouTube video in which a man shoots high off a huge water slide and lands, far in the distance, in a small inflatable pool; and one about insects.

Photos: 'MythBusters' takes aim at new episodes

To Savage, Twitter has become a terrific way for him to have a dialogue with the show's fans, especially since he says that the highly negative tone of the comments in the show's official forums turns him off and distracts him from doing his job.

By comparison, he said that because his Twitter followers know that he reads all of the tweets sent to him, there's somewhat of a "social contract" involved that improves the conversation. "I still have disagreements with people on Twitter," Savage said. "But it's much more civilized, and for me as a person who wants to give more value to the fans, I think about what I would want to read of someone who I admired, so I post funny things from behind the set" and lots of personal anecdotes.

For Hyneman, by contrast, Twitter, or any other social network, for that matter, isn't useful, and has actually become a bit of a distraction at work.

"I do notice that it's increasingly difficult to get Adam's attention when we're trying to work," Hyneman said, "because (if) you give him an instant of inactivity...it's like, okay," and he starts to use his iPhone.

Adam Savage often takes every available moment during the work day to communicate with people on his iPhone.

(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET)

Asked why he has an iPhone, Savage said only that he is "an Apple Kool-Aid drinker from way back...and I love everything they produce."

Duct tape and much more
This fall, just as has been the case since "MythBusters" first got started, Savage and Hyneman have been scouring the world for things that pique their curiosity. Indeed, the show has taken the two--plus the show's other team of co-stars, Kari Byron, Grant Imahara and Tory Belleci--on an unending quest for myths to bust that present them with a sense of adventure.

But this fall, viewers will see more on the show about duct tape, probably, than they ever thought possible. In fact, what started as a path towards a single segment on the popular adhesive ended up resulting in an entire duct tape special.

Both teams of "MythBusters" actually did two or three duct tape stories, Savage explained. "Some spectacular stuff came out of that," he said, "and if we could, we'd just move on to more duct tape stuff. But we've got to space it out so we don't over-duct tape the audience."

And while they wouldn't reveal too many details of what they'd done with the famous grey tape, Hyneman did allow that, in one situation, "We were on our way out the Golden Gate Bridge and had to turn back because the camera crew was complaining that they were getting too wet from the rough seas."

Whether that explains the boat covered in duct tape that is now hanging from the ceiling at M5 Industries, the San Francisco studio space where Hyneman and Savage do their work, is hard to say. But the boat is clearly from the duct tape special.

And while the two are cagey about much of what's coming up in the fall's episodes, they did share some information about one or two myths they attempted to bust.

One is the idea that a prisoner could use thousands of antacid tablets to create enough pressure to bust out of his or her cell. The two wouldn't say what the outcome of their experiment with more than 20,000 antacid tablets was, but they did admit that they were able to bust through a scale model of a jail cell made out of glass.

"It comes down to how well is the cell built," joked Hyneman.

The two were also willing to talk about the segment they did for one of the upcoming episodes on the aerodynamics of dirty cars, one of the myths that came from Twitter.

The myth, explained Savage, is that a dirty car is more fuel efficient than a clean one due to the "golf ball effect" caused by the dirt. The idea, he said, is that the dirt creates something of a "boundary layer that allows the car to be more aerodynamic."

Neither Savage nor Hyneman would say what the results of their investigation was, but Hyneman did say that they were both "very, very surprised (by) the results" and that what they found will be "of quite a lot of interest to the automotive industry."

Still another future episode has to do with the physics of bullet ricochets and whether it is possible for a shooter to hit him or herself with a bullet shot in an enclosed space. The results of that experiment also took the two by surprise, particularly because, as Hyneman said, "there are some basic flaws in the concept that you see in the movies with this 'ding-ding-ding and down you go.'"

At a much higher level now
"MythBusters" has now completed production on 134 episodes, and to Hyneman, that much experience has allowed him and Savage to be much more advanced in their approach to busting myths than they were at the beginning.

"The kinds of insights that we're seeing as far as the physics and the chemistry (and) all the dynamics of what's going on there," Hyneman said, "we're starting out at a much higher level now, and so the results that we're getting are not quite as basic as they were when we started."

More to the point, he said, he and Savage attack their work with greater clarity now, and have a better sense of what the best process is for attacking a myth. Oddly, instead of doing better science, or making things stronger or taking more risks, it all begins with the very concepts for each myth.

"The most important thing to get straight is the question you're trying to ask in the first place," Hyneman said. "It seems like a simple thing, but it's hard to get to that point and, a lot of times now, we're spending much more time defining that question before we do anything else."

[mattumanu]

Three articles about mythbusters... Must be a slow news day in tech. Here's how I feel about this. Mythbusters is a cool show. Nice. However, I don't come to Cnet to find out about mythbusters. And what's more, there's three redundant articles about the same material. I haven't checked Cnet TV yet, but I'm sure there's something in there too.

Totally redundant.

[Pizzookie]

Seriously! why do people insist on complaining about articles that the editors post. If you think it is redundant then don't read it and quit whining about it. There is plenty of tech news on Cnet.

[pixelpusher220]

As long as they are planning to do the RFID credit card test that the lawyers prevented them from doing, they may regain some legitimacy.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/09/03/mythbusters-rfid-episode-banned/1

complete corporate sell outs even though they'd like you to think otherwise.

[terminalblue]

@pixelpusher

to be fair, their are alot of things that they cant and wont do...
Because they wont do 9/11 myths or JFK myths, does that make them Zionists or conspirators?
They cant get physically invovled in as many of there myths as before either because of insurance risks.

just because they cant satisfy your wish of seeing RFID debunked doesnt mean you need to trash talk them. if you dont like RFID, and nobody should, then go out and do something about it.

[pixelpusher220]

@terminalblue:

The point was they *had* planned to do the show when they caved in to the big credit card companies. The host speaking candidly to an audience and then the *very next day* being trotted out to walk back everything he said. Clearly the lawyers told him to shut down the topic.

I don't have as much of a problem if you expressly state you won't do certain things, JFK to 9/11, but RFID chips in credit cards hard falls into the same category as those topics, no? they did an 'ice bullet' myth test which was one theory for JFK so they've at least touched on that before as well.

RFID is just a technology, and a clear myth/fact exists that the Credit Card companies don't want people to know about. Namely that they can be read from multiple meters away and cloned. Thus making you have to explain why your card was used, because the RFID signature was there proving your card was at the purchase location, even though it clearly was still in your pocket.

[terminalblue]

@pixel

we both agree that RFID is bad...no problem there. and they did "ice bullet" in relation to the movie "Most Wanted" (yeah, with Keenan Ivory Waynas) and not in connection with the Kennedy assassination.

I think that most of cnet's readers know that we are more at risk for modern theft by using RFID, and obviously Adam, Jamie and most of the production staff at Mythbusters feel the same way. If they had pushed the episode into production, edited it and aired it, then worse case scenario, Discovery and Beyond productions would have to pay out of their own pockets and the episode would never air again (at least not on TV). It might have even resulted in the early cancellation of the show. Even if they had completed the episode, it is most likely that Discovery never would have aired it.

You can't call them sell outs because they want to protect their interests. I do certainly think it balls that these companies would try to sue any one that was trying to inform people of the pitfalls of any modern technology. but there are more forces at work then just one production company. But calling them corporate sell outs is not just wrong, its misinformed.

i will say this, about the show in general, that it seems that the overall quality of the show has slowly declined in recent years. I still like Adam and Jamie, but it seems like they arent as "daring" as they used to be. and Kari, Grant and Tori, bore my brains out.

[nallja]

While the premise of Mythbusters is interesting, their lack of scientific understanding draws legitamacy from the conclusions they make. Don't get me wrong, it makes great entertainment television. Just remember, don't try what they do at home, not because its dangerous, but because its shoddy science.

[methos2000]

I've heard your sentiment from other people before. I don't disagree, but I also don't quite understand what you mean... can you give an example of how the show is bad science?

[OlsonBW]

And your background is??? Have you actually taken a myth and applied science to it, I mean, ACTUALLY done something like they have done and applied science to it and come up with a different answer. Nobody is interested in theory. We are interested in actual proving/disproving myths and doing it in an entertaining way? Remember that the last is just as important as the first.

If you can say yes to all of the following, why aren't YOU on TV?

[viper396]

They've got a lot better understanding of the science then most of the self-proclaimed critics and armchair experts on the internet. If you've watched the show they do also consult with alot of experts in the related scientific or professional fields when necessary.

[timber2005]

Oi... you worry about their lack of scienctific understanding, but you miss that MYTHS THEMSELVES also lack scientific understanding at times.

[repete66211]

They do cut a lot of corners and I take issue with some of their tests, but I have yet to see an episode that I thought to be scientifically unsound. If you've ever heard Adam or Jamie interviewed you know a lot of compromise is made by the producers in an effort to make the show more watchable.

[dataJONBOY]

come on people, this is clearly justified as tech news. maybe it's early in the day and im still positive from my coffee. but i had been wondering when the new season started and now i know. this was informative to me. plus the focus of the article is about twitter which is clearly tech news. i had heard that he loved mac products but didnt know he was heavily into twitter. i will probably follow him now. and in thier defense they know what there doing. an engineer could gripe about the sub doctorate level of understanding of somethings, but you have to take into consideration the wide girth of thier knowledge. it's practically bard like. plus the do more than talk the talk, they walk the walk. they actually apply knowledge. woodworking, fabrication, metalsmithing, electronics, rationalization, methodology: there really holding it down. how many of us could honestly say that we are well versed in all of these things

[kayts013]

Completely agree. Well said.

[Randy549]

+1

[Rod Roddy]

I interned at Jamie Hyneman's shop in SF, M5 Intustries back in 2001, it's an awesome place to be with all the cool robotics and movie props all around. Also many talented people work there, and what they do is a science, and very technical in its own right.

[Been_there_Saw_it_before]

I am an engineer, originally electrical, then software, on to automatic test equipment, and now low-level mechanical too. I enjoy watching their show and thoroughly appreciate the skill and problem solving they perform. They are off a little once in awhile, and I even go down the wrong path of their myths. It is like play, I can watch it for hours.

It is a lot like This Old House, I can watch work for hours also.

[philpalm1]

Boils down to when science hits the road. In the case of mythbusters they do hit the road hard, fortunately they use test dummies and not real people.

If someone is inclined to criticize their science you can either make your own show or sign in as an advisor by tweeting them. The do listen to feedback which is the true test of science.

[nallja]

Actually they don't, I expressed concern over several myth's they "busted" that could cause harm to people (i.e. their marching across a bridge episode). No response, no retraction, no comment on their over simplified test methods. This is entertainment, pure and simple.

Making your own show and actually using the scientific method would never fly, the average American doesn't have the intelligence or attention span to appreciate the nuances of real scientific exploration and discovery.

[OlsonBW]

Only if it is constructive and not argumentative. Or another way to put it, know what you are talking about and don't be an a$$.

[methos2000]

@nallja
Again, what did you express concern over in the marching across a bridge episode? Are you saying the myth could cause harm to people, or their conclusion? For your complaints you don't seem to give much detail.

So what is real scientific exploration and discovery?

I really get aggravated with people that criticize others without presenting a clear and concise argument, which as I understand it is part of the scientific method. That is to say, science is about making clear and concise hypothesis, which is then tested using an experimental procedure to which others can replicate and produce the same results.

So with your criticisms of Mythbusters please: make a statement why the show is not scientific to which I can watch the specific segment and form the same conclusion

[nallja]

Digging back to the early episodes, they were testing whether or not a platoon of troops marching across a bridge could cause it to fail. They proclaimed the myth busted. However, the forces, masses, frequency, and rigidity of the bridge system had no resemblance to an actual system. The frequency was generated by one of them flipping a switch. Why would they do it manually when a relay timer would have been much more effective. The bridge was a single peice of wood, not a system of connections that flex when force is applied. There was almost no mass on the bridge, the endpoints of the bridge were not captivated, ect, ect, ect. While new bridges are built with damping mechanisms, older bridges in the US and abroad are simple span systems and could fail with the correct force and frequency applied.

Its like CSI, enteratainment television with a science theme.

[nallja]

Going back to the "Marching across a bridge" episode.

Bridge system: Ends not captivate, single plank system doesn't accurately reflect the complexity of a span with connections, too low to the ground (it actually touched the ground at some points damping the oscillation).

Force system: Frequency generation done by hand when a cheap relay timer would have been more effective, applied force was not coupled well to the bridge ( it bounced with every stroke ), very narrow range of frequencies tested.

These are just the things I remember. Marching across a bridge is a safety issue and one that is much more complex than they can accurately model with their props.

I'm not saying its a bad show or these are bad guys, they make good entertainment television.

[viper396]

@nallja, you don't get it. If you've watched the show, many of the topics they have tackled have little to no real science behind them in the first place, hence the reason they were often called "Myths". A detailed scientific understanding and analysis often isn't necessary to bust or prove these kind of myths, they just need to duplicate them and if they can't reasonable do it, it's "busted".

[myles taylor]

I'm really excited about the new season because it seems more down to earth. While they get better ratings I'm sure, it seems like they manage to work an explosion into every episode these days. It's interesting, but I like the simple myths.

I think I'll be following Adam on Twitter. I don't really like their forums either.

[Seaspray0]

"I like the simple myths." Old wives tales and urban legends? Yep, me too. Scuse me, my nose is itching.

[E B]

Only problem I have is that I can't stand to sit through the show any more. The announcer voiceovers, with "when we last saw Jamie," and "coming up after the commercial you'll finally see the scene we've teased three times already this episode," so you end up seeing the same scene about four times...it's just annoying. It seems the announcer is half the show, and the actual myth explanation, experiment setup, and experiment results -- the stuff we tune in for -- are no more than half the show.

As for the rest...it may not be the most rigorous science, but it's not supposed to be. It's entertaining, reasonably accurate, reasonably authoritative, and a lot of fun to watch (when you're not listening to the announcer).

[davidlari]

The show is much better if you DVR and hit the skip button. It takes only about 30 minutes to get through an episode that way.

[Dust_Puppy]

Yup . . .

Too much negativity . . . and if you hate it that much, you're just being a troll, plain and simple.
Definitely the format change is sort of annoying . . . but agree with the DVR, because you can turn 2 old episodes into 1 :)
Glad he admits about the Kool-aid. It's OK to drink it, don't get me wrong, but you have to admit it ;)

And . . . am I the only one that finds it funny that they clearly use macs a lot and there is so much MS advertising? ;) The diesel pseudo-mythbusting is pretty lame though. The points are valid, but in themselves lend to other myths :/

Nice change of pace around here :)

[aj37viggen]

There should be a Facebook quiz on "Which Mythbuster Are You?"

I'd want to be Grant, but I'm definitely Jamie. I can just see the expression on his face as he complains about not being able to hold Adam's attention away from Twitter.

I enjoy the investigations, but what keeps me watching is the chemistry among the presenters. It's like "Jon & Kate" before the divorce stuff, or "American Chopper" without all the yelling and throwing things. Just fun people trying to make professional-looking television, but not trying so hard that their personalities disappear.

[Biglet]

Deffo my fav TV program, in fact the only one I have a reminder that pops up on my PC to remind me to go watch it. Finding decent myths to bust was always going to be the challenge and at times I find myself wondering why they're bothering with something so obviously false or at least ridiculously impractical. What their obsession about busting ouf of jails is about I have no idea.

However today I do not watch it. Why? Because of so many darn repeats. Now if they could produce a complete boxed set on DVD, I'll buy it. Until then, I just don't trust em not to be repeating an old episode.

This is the only show that all members of my extended family will watch.

[kski]

I love a sneak peak of mythbusters!!! Keep articles like this coming!!

[SactoGuy018]

I am a BIG fan of MythBusters because while the science is obviously not extremely rigorous, what they do achieve makes for great viewing. Remember the episode where they tried all those attempts to beat the radar gun used by the police? It proved that the "ad hoc" methods just flat-out don't work, and shooting out aluminum foil chaff will also get you an even bigger ticket for littering.... (Mind you, I think people forget that at the ranges police radar and lidar operate--usually only a couple of thousand feet at maximum--it's pretty much impossible to "cloak" your car from radar and lidar. Real stealth technology used by modern warplanes and ships base their stealthiness of being several MILES from the radar transmitter.)

[Chidori602]

i love mythbusters

[bbqdhampster]

This is one of the best shows on TV... It is good to test theories just to see if the Engineers and Scientists actually know what they are talking about. Many times the professionals don't have a clue. They repeat what they read in a book or learned from a class but have no practical experience.
Over 45 years ago I was able to prove that the Hindenburg was not taken down by a Hydrogen "explosion " via my own experiments in my fathers garage. Evidently cooler heads are restudying that disaster and have come to the same conclusion.
"Public" information is often distorted or misguided and is comprised mostly of superstition. Education seems to be incomplete simply to prevent people from experimenting with things that could have the potential of causing harm. The people who convey the information, to the public, are often ignorant as to the subject matter. For example if Electromagnetic Radiation were as remotely dangerous as has been claimed by a bunch of frantic housewives I would have been dead years ago. The hysterics caused by these ignorant people has cost a lot of money and wasted a lot of time.
If exposing ignorance on TV is a way to overcome it then so be it. Carry on.
At least these guys have figured out a way to monetize the truth even if is by demonstrating that a frozen chicken is not a killing machine. I applaud them for having made this show a success by simply asking questions.

[inachu1]

They said BUSTED on the I LOVE LUCY radio in tooth thing and I can vouch for this is real as it happened to me.

[cowgirlsofia]

well, it's not a rigorous science show at all, but those guys are really cool, ain't they?~ so guys, why not not be so annoying n not be so fo a self- proclaimed critics. then..