MythBusters Episode 69: 22,000 Foot Fall
Air Date: December 13, 2006
A 22,000 foot fall is survivable if you fall through a glass ceiling and a 1,000 pound bomb explodes below you.
busted
In both the small scale and full scale tests, the MythBusters observed that the difference in pressure between the falling person and the shockwave from the blast are too vastly different to be equalized. Also, the glass and metal fragmentation from the explosion would most likely kill the falling person if the fall itself does not.
(This myth originates from a World War II story in which an Allied airman fell out of the underside ball turret of his B-17 at 22,000 feet and survived.)
Temporarily leaving a light on is more engery efficient than turning it off and back on.
busted
Through numerous tests, the MythBusters calculated that the power surge from turning on a light would only consume as much power as leaving it on for a fraction of a second (except for fluorescent tube lights; the startup consumed about 23 seconds worth of power). Furthermore, the wear and tear of turning the light on and off repeatedly did not reduce the bulb’s total life expectancy enough to offset the increased electricity usage. Therefore, it is far more economical to turn a light off rather than leaving it on.
I didn’t care for the 22Kfoot experiment. The dummy didn’t fall directly on top of the bomb, as the myth states, so could not be expected to be buoyed by the shock wave in direct opposition to it’s motion. I think it should have been “inconclusive”.
Suggest a re-test, with better control.
June 25, 2007 at 6:32 PMThere is an article in the Guinness Book of Records of a Vesna Vulovic falling 10.16 km (6 miles 551 yd), after the plane blew up over Srbska Kamenice, Czechoslovakia, on 26 January 1972. I don’t know the other circumstances, but that is a lot of time to get your breath back after a few “AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH”’s, eh.
June 26, 2007 at 10:23 AMthe shrapnel wold kill him before he impacts on the ground
June 26, 2007 at 8:49 PMI think the 22,000 foot Myth should be done again…….but with MORE EXPLOSIONS!!!!!! YEAH!!!!!!
July 5, 2007 at 10:35 PMBuster Boys,(and Girls)
July 14, 2007 at 3:39 PMThis may be a confusing comment, I’ll do my best to clarify what I’m saying.
On the Energy effeciency myth with swithing lights on/off, and conservation, etc. If you think about it, was not done accurately. It was calculated totally backwards ‘mathmatically’ in regards to who’s side (TURN-OFF/LEAVE ON)is responsible for the light HAVING to be turned on again anyway. The responsibility and math of shutting off and then HAVING TO TURN IT BACK ON in the first place, the culprit falls on the TURNING-OFF side… because if the light was left on-you would not have the RE-START math at all. It defaults therfore on the TURNING THE LIGHT OFF in the first place. The calculations were on the wrong side. ie: If your in a room knowing that your going right back in and leave it on, (which I do sometimes)the light would STILL BE ON after entering the room again. The START-UP math was ass backwards. (pardon wa) The damaging numbers were applied incorrectly. What do you say to do it again in the right ‘light???’ I still may be wrong. But again-it is just looking deeper in the WHY’s behind it.
Thanks for the energy consumption myth in regards to light bulbs. What about the theory about leaving computers on to reduce the ‘wear and tear’ of turning them on / off / on?
Having worked as a troubleshooting technician for a while, i’ve come across clients who left their CRT’s on 24/7 because they didn’t see anything on the screen and thought they were ‘off’. After (granted) a few years of this the screen started decaying with a discolorization effect. Pointing out to them that they need to turn off the CRT, the problem cleared up.
Anywho, thanks again.
July 18, 2007 at 10:16 AMSM
The only way you could survive in the way the myth states would be to fall on an incredibly small target, onto the same place an enormous bomb fell, at the exact second at which the shockwave would be able to counteract your fall enough to save you, in addition you would have to miss all of the flying glass and metal and what ever else happened to be caught in the blast, finally you would have to pray that you didn’t land badly or you might die anyway. Too many variables to account for, maybe somehow it did work, but there isn’t a chance in hell of recreating it.
July 18, 2007 at 11:18 PMHi guys,
August 5, 2007 at 11:35 PMWe love your show but want to set you straight on the details of a myth you tested. It was about the “famous” B17 tail gunner who fell, without his chute, from [I heard 20K feet] and survived. Rather than landing in/on a greenhouse, he fell through pine branches, into a deep snow bank and survived.
He was our neighbor but not a close friend. His name was Smith, [forget first name, and he is no longer alive. He and his family lived in the Colonial Acres development of Bel Air, MD in the 1960s and 1970s – maybe later. My son Michael, now 52, dated his daughter while in high school. We can try to research the details further if you are interested. The story,as best I can recall was that when picked up by German authorities, without a parachute, they thought he was a spy. He told then the tail number of his plane and they did indeed find his chute hanging on a bulkhead just forward of the tail section that broke off with him in it. He was interned in a stalag and given an “official certificate” by the Luftwaffe “to take home after the war for his children” attesting to his miraculous survival. We lost track of the family and my son is now a grandfather but it would be interesting to researvh the details.
thanks for running the lightbulb; I’ve been wanting hard numbers for just years.
October 27, 2007 at 4:36 PMthat big boom was cool
December 1, 2007 at 5:52 AMJust a minor note; energy is misspelled above. Thanks for compiling these lists.
December 17, 2007 at 2:25 AMLeaving lightbulbs and other devices on all the time… just using energy consumption rates to see if its more economical is flawed. if we think about a household economics then we must also factor in the cost of the lamp… whether that be incondesent or compact floresents… the cost a kilowatt hour varies and the enviroment that the lamp is in (cold or hot temperatures) also plays a part in the economics… so if your only using kwhours its more economical but is it when factoring in the cost of the device.
December 30, 2007 at 12:36 AMI know this has nothing to do with the myth, but I think it would be interesting if they tested a Wee Gee Board. I know that is probably a fake, but still some trusted people in my life claim to have used a Wee Gee Board and have something happen to them (hands being moved, unexplained lights flashing, that kind of stuff) so if your reading this Mythbusters, could you please give the Wee Gee myth a go?
Thanks, BYE!-Hornet
January 3, 2008 at 4:57 PMive seen that episode today too. that explosion was cool
January 28, 2008 at 2:06 AMerase the “too”
January 28, 2008 at 2:06 AMive talked on here and the previous person that talked posted it january 8th
January 28, 2008 at 2:08 AMHi,Love the show,it makes my evenings a learning experiance as opposed to watching the usual dribble.But what I would like to know on the light bulb test,is how long all the lights lasted for on being constantly turned off/on every 2 mins.I have been using metal halide lights for many years to grow plants,and from from experiance they take longer then 2 mins to fully light up,it’s more like 5-10 mins.so there is yet another flaw in the testing.but regardless of that,how did all the others do as this was not stated in the program as do many other tests.looking foward to a detailed reply on the longevity of the other bulbs…many thanx tony
February 12, 2008 at 3:10 PMHaving been an energy conservation technical sales engineer for a Fortune 50 company for years I quickly learned that if the owner was ONLY concerned about lights, and if they just turned them off relgiously when not needed, they had no use for a fancy control system. Of course if their were other componets like HVAC thatc hanged. There was an industry study done taht lasted 5 years in regards to the overall costs of an energy manament system controlling building lights vs stickers on the light switch that said “Turn off lights when leaving room”. In the end the stickers won. The initial cost of the stickers was so low when compared to the EMS system that even considering the longivety of the bulbs, the initial cost of the bulbs, etc… It paid to put a sticker on the light switch. Shot my sales to hell on that one!
March 30, 2008 at 11:20 AMI had a lecture at university once and the lecturer said something like, ‘turning the light on uses 30minutes of electricity’. This was a broad and crude statement yes, and with energy-saving bulbs perhaps has some truth but maybe he should watch mythbusters :p
July 3, 2008 at 4:38 PMThe myth surrounding a World War II story in which an Allied airman fell out of the underside ball turret of his B-17 at 22,000 feet and survived is true. His name was Alan Magee and he happened to be my great uncle. He died at age 86. I grew up hearing the tale from Uncle Alan and my family has his purple heart to prove it. You might should re-test your experiment.
December 30, 2008 at 3:11 PMA bomb’s shockwave just couldnt be the truth. If a person falling at 120 mph encounters a shock wave strong enough to stop them, it would be the same as hitting the ground!
January 6, 2009 at 4:30 AMThey would be torn apart.
(This is what happens when academic postulation is applied without considering reality and it’s limitations.)
does any one know the exactly what the name for the led bulb was called
February 2, 2009 at 8:21 PMHey:
March 25, 2009 at 5:51 PMAny thoughts on where I can get the math formula that was used to bust the lightbulb myth?
How can the myth be busted when Ted didn’t land in the middle of the target? It seems like the experiment was flawed.
June 13, 2009 at 8:21 PMFalling airman: I wonder if the mention of a shockwave is misleading… a shockwave if it were to be able to break the fall would ‘break’ the airman too as if hitting the ground. The effect of the updraught MAY be the answer… being a more gradual effect slowing the airman slightly more gradually… but again there’s the problem of all the shrapnell coming up to meet him… back to the drawing board…
July 6, 2009 at 5:04 PMLight Bulb: Oh Mythbusters! How could you?
Publishing your results as “W/hr”! Watts per hour?
Arrrgh!
Use Joules per hour, or Watt-hours per hour, or Watt-seconds per hour – fine! Or simply measure the Joules (or US Calories!) used in start up.
Or divide the power in the start-up and switch-off cycles by the time taken, and express the “steady-state equivalent power” in watts.
But to express the steady-state consumption of bulb in Watts-per-hour? Busted! Totally busted!
July 20, 2009 at 7:37 AM(on your light survey) i have a fluorescent tube that i constantly leave on. whats the breakdown on that? my dad, before he passed away, said something to the effect, that fluorescent tubes would never blow out if you never turn them off.is this true?
August 18, 2009 at 10:05 PMI’ve heard about that. The woman was pinned to the back of the aircraft with a food cart. It acted as a seatbelt. The aircraft broke in two. The commercial jet fell and landed at an angle on a hill covered in trees. The hill and the trees let the plane slide down while the trees slowed the aircraft. Then the airline worker was pinned to the back of the aircraft by a food tray as the only survivor suffering injuries but luck was at play there as well. If the plane did not land where it did, no one could have survived.
Ray:
There is an article in the Guinness Book of Records of a Vesna Vulovic falling 10.16 km (6 miles 551 yd), after the plane blew up over Srbska Kamenice, Czechoslovakia, on 26 January 1972. I don’t know the other circumstances, but that is a lot of time to get your breath back after a few “AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH”’s, eh.
December 1, 2009 at 7:59 AMi agree with the first one i say its inconclusive and that a re-test is in order and buster has to fall on the bomb
January 20, 2010 at 7:44 AM__
to James L.
Its also stated that it might be false and she did land only 100 m. I personaly dont belive that unless she had quiness personel with her when she jumped
February 2, 2010 at 12:14 AM