<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Episode 69: 22,000 Foot Fall</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69</link>
	<description>Outcomes from all MythBusters Episodes</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:12:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Damon Lehr</title>
		<link>http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69/comment-page-1#comment-12690</link>
		<dc:creator>Damon Lehr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Nov 2011 00:16:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69#comment-12690</guid>
		<description>The idea isn&#039;t to save power for me. It is to try and save money and be comfortable at the same time (a balance). What you forgot was that your savings could be a lot more if you have a tiered power bill based on usage. Some power companies charge you different rates based on your usage. If you can keep your power bill under a certain ammount with let&#039;s say a 2% savings then it could end up saving you a whole lot more if you don&#039;t break that usage barrier. IE: It&#039;s kinda like a tax bracket.. but with your power bill instead.

Also, I have a complete home automation system that shuts off all kinds of bulbs all the time. My life expectancy of my bulbs has not changed at all with the added turning on and off of the bulbs ALL the time. I also confirm that result.

On another note: I want to know if you can build a coffee or ice machine using only the sun&#039;s power in a small compact solution. These are both high power users and I would love an alternative answer to pluging them in the wall. Some coffee makers use as much or more electricity than your high powered floor vacuums do!!.. So next time you run your coffee maker imagine it making all that noise and shaking the rug!.. Shut it off after the brewing cycle ends or use a coffee press instead for better tasting coffee.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The idea isn&#8217;t to save power for me. It is to try and save money and be comfortable at the same time (a balance). What you forgot was that your savings could be a lot more if you have a tiered power bill based on usage. Some power companies charge you different rates based on your usage. If you can keep your power bill under a certain ammount with let&#8217;s say a 2% savings then it could end up saving you a whole lot more if you don&#8217;t break that usage barrier. IE: It&#8217;s kinda like a tax bracket.. but with your power bill instead.</p>
<p>Also, I have a complete home automation system that shuts off all kinds of bulbs all the time. My life expectancy of my bulbs has not changed at all with the added turning on and off of the bulbs ALL the time. I also confirm that result.</p>
<p>On another note: I want to know if you can build a coffee or ice machine using only the sun&#8217;s power in a small compact solution. These are both high power users and I would love an alternative answer to pluging them in the wall. Some coffee makers use as much or more electricity than your high powered floor vacuums do!!.. So next time you run your coffee maker imagine it making all that noise and shaking the rug!.. Shut it off after the brewing cycle ends or use a coffee press instead for better tasting coffee.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MSpears</title>
		<link>http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69/comment-page-1#comment-12089</link>
		<dc:creator>MSpears</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:01:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69#comment-12089</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s spelled &#039;Ouija&#039;, not &#039;Wee Gee&#039;.  And I doubt they&#039;ll ever test it, because after the &quot;Pyramid Power&quot; myth, Adam specifically asked, &quot;can we please not have any more boogedy-boogedy myths?&quot;

As far as whether it&#039;s a fake or not... on the one hand, my friends and I *did* play with a Ouija board in college, and some things happened which I can&#039;t explain.

On the other hand... I find it hard to take anything too seriously that has the words &quot;PARKER BROTHERS&quot; on it.  :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s spelled &#8216;Ouija&#8217;, not &#8216;Wee Gee&#8217;.  And I doubt they&#8217;ll ever test it, because after the &#8220;Pyramid Power&#8221; myth, Adam specifically asked, &#8220;can we please not have any more boogedy-boogedy myths?&#8221;</p>
<p>As far as whether it&#8217;s a fake or not&#8230; on the one hand, my friends and I *did* play with a Ouija board in college, and some things happened which I can&#8217;t explain.</p>
<p>On the other hand&#8230; I find it hard to take anything too seriously that has the words &#8220;PARKER BROTHERS&#8221; on it.  :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MSpears</title>
		<link>http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69/comment-page-1#comment-12088</link>
		<dc:creator>MSpears</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:54:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69#comment-12088</guid>
		<description>As a computer tech with almost 3 decades of experience, I can say that the &#039;wear and tear&#039; of turning a computer on and off has almost no effect on modern computers.  Even though the power surge of turning the computer on MIGHT shorten the lifespan of the computer, by the time it would burn out, you&#039;ve probably already bought a newer model, so it&#039;s irrelevant.

Also, computers that are built with ATX power supplies are &#039;always on&#039; anyway; the power supply does not connect directly to the system power button, and energy flows to the components even when the computer appears to be &#039;off&#039;, so the mythical &#039;power surge&#039; no longer happens.

The only possible effect might be with hard drives; it takes more effort to spin the drive up to speed, than it does to keep it spinning.  But again, the effect is minimal at best, since by the time the hard drive burns out, you&#039;ll probably have replaced it anyway.  And of course, SSD&#039;s (Solid State Drives) have no mechanical parts at all.

The power surge used to be MUCH more significant in the late 70s/early 80s, when home computing was in its infancy.  We were specifically warned, with computers that had external power bricks like the Commodore 64 or Vic-20, to unplug the power brick when the computer was off; otherwise, the power supply could overheat and develop a &#039;thermal flaw&#039; (which basically means it would stop working after about 30 minutes, until you unplugged it long enough to cool off again).

We were also warned to turn components on in a specific order, to minimize the effects of the power surge on the sensitive circuits inside the computer; you always turned on the printer first, then the disk drive, then the computer was turned on LAST.

The same applies for modern CRTs (well, LCDs... CRTs are rapidly disappearing).  Most monitors made during the late 90&#039;s, and all monitors made since about 2000, go into a low-power standby mode if they do not receive a video signal from a computer, or if the computer sends a &#039;standby&#039; signal, so as long as the computer is &#039;off&#039;, the monitor is also &#039;off&#039; (but still receiving power).

Coincidentally, both old-fashioned CRT monitors and LCD monitors will lose about half their brightness over time; for CRT monitors it takes about 5 years, for LCD monitors about 10 years.

Early-model CRT monitors also had a problem with &#039;burn-in&#039; if the same image was left on the screen long enough; for a perfect example, see if you can find an old video game, like a Pac-Man machine.  You can still see a ghost image of the maze, even when the machine is turned off.

Newer CRTs were less susceptible to burn-in, but note that even though it&#039;s VERY rare, even LCD monitors can still develop burn-in if the same image is displayed for too long (over a course of many weeks) but this is often only temporary; as a result, major LCD manufacturers no longer include a warranty against burn-in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a computer tech with almost 3 decades of experience, I can say that the &#8216;wear and tear&#8217; of turning a computer on and off has almost no effect on modern computers.  Even though the power surge of turning the computer on MIGHT shorten the lifespan of the computer, by the time it would burn out, you&#8217;ve probably already bought a newer model, so it&#8217;s irrelevant.</p>
<p>Also, computers that are built with ATX power supplies are &#8216;always on&#8217; anyway; the power supply does not connect directly to the system power button, and energy flows to the components even when the computer appears to be &#8216;off&#8217;, so the mythical &#8216;power surge&#8217; no longer happens.</p>
<p>The only possible effect might be with hard drives; it takes more effort to spin the drive up to speed, than it does to keep it spinning.  But again, the effect is minimal at best, since by the time the hard drive burns out, you&#8217;ll probably have replaced it anyway.  And of course, SSD&#8217;s (Solid State Drives) have no mechanical parts at all.</p>
<p>The power surge used to be MUCH more significant in the late 70s/early 80s, when home computing was in its infancy.  We were specifically warned, with computers that had external power bricks like the Commodore 64 or Vic-20, to unplug the power brick when the computer was off; otherwise, the power supply could overheat and develop a &#8216;thermal flaw&#8217; (which basically means it would stop working after about 30 minutes, until you unplugged it long enough to cool off again).</p>
<p>We were also warned to turn components on in a specific order, to minimize the effects of the power surge on the sensitive circuits inside the computer; you always turned on the printer first, then the disk drive, then the computer was turned on LAST.</p>
<p>The same applies for modern CRTs (well, LCDs&#8230; CRTs are rapidly disappearing).  Most monitors made during the late 90&#8242;s, and all monitors made since about 2000, go into a low-power standby mode if they do not receive a video signal from a computer, or if the computer sends a &#8216;standby&#8217; signal, so as long as the computer is &#8216;off&#8217;, the monitor is also &#8216;off&#8217; (but still receiving power).</p>
<p>Coincidentally, both old-fashioned CRT monitors and LCD monitors will lose about half their brightness over time; for CRT monitors it takes about 5 years, for LCD monitors about 10 years.</p>
<p>Early-model CRT monitors also had a problem with &#8216;burn-in&#8217; if the same image was left on the screen long enough; for a perfect example, see if you can find an old video game, like a Pac-Man machine.  You can still see a ghost image of the maze, even when the machine is turned off.</p>
<p>Newer CRTs were less susceptible to burn-in, but note that even though it&#8217;s VERY rare, even LCD monitors can still develop burn-in if the same image is displayed for too long (over a course of many weeks) but this is often only temporary; as a result, major LCD manufacturers no longer include a warranty against burn-in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Viv</title>
		<link>http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69/comment-page-1#comment-11373</link>
		<dc:creator>Viv</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:11:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69#comment-11373</guid>
		<description>in 1991 I moved back in with my parents after 3 years out of home. 

The number of persons residing in their home rose from 3 to 4. One would expect an increase in power usage.

Compared to the same quarter in the previous year, the household electricity bill went *down* by A$300.

All I did was go around turning lights off after them.

And we didn&#039;t experience a spike in globe/tube replacements either!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>in 1991 I moved back in with my parents after 3 years out of home. </p>
<p>The number of persons residing in their home rose from 3 to 4. One would expect an increase in power usage.</p>
<p>Compared to the same quarter in the previous year, the household electricity bill went *down* by A$300.</p>
<p>All I did was go around turning lights off after them.</p>
<p>And we didn&#8217;t experience a spike in globe/tube replacements either!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oz1</title>
		<link>http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69/comment-page-1#comment-9111</link>
		<dc:creator>oz1</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:33:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69#comment-9111</guid>
		<description>not ALL the glass would be knocked out by the bomb entering. The bomb would also have some forward momentum and would not be directly under the hole, so there would be some glass above it</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>not ALL the glass would be knocked out by the bomb entering. The bomb would also have some forward momentum and would not be directly under the hole, so there would be some glass above it</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mytherbuster buster</title>
		<link>http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69/comment-page-1#comment-8611</link>
		<dc:creator>mytherbuster buster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:44:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69#comment-8611</guid>
		<description>Big problem here. First why does mythbuster not allow a easy path to question there conclusions? Second the big question is that the bomb would blow glass up to the falling person. Wrong the bomb would knock out the glass when it was coming down so that ther would be no glass to be blown up to hurt the flling person. Afterall how did the bomb get there if it did not fall through the roof?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Big problem here. First why does mythbuster not allow a easy path to question there conclusions? Second the big question is that the bomb would blow glass up to the falling person. Wrong the bomb would knock out the glass when it was coming down so that ther would be no glass to be blown up to hurt the flling person. Afterall how did the bomb get there if it did not fall through the roof?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J.V.</title>
		<link>http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69/comment-page-1#comment-8610</link>
		<dc:creator>J.V.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:32:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69#comment-8610</guid>
		<description>This myth should have been confirmed for florescent bulbs.  The fact that all of the bulbs were burnt out after 6 weeks of cycling supports the myth.  During the 6 weeks, the bulbs would have been &quot;on&quot; for a total of only about 500 hours.  The published lifespan of a typical CFL bulb is over 10000 hours, which means the bulb only lasted 1/20th the amount of time that it was supposed to.  A study that used to be on the Department of Energy&#039;s website got similar results and stated that cycling a CFL in 5 minute on/off intervals will shorten its lifetime by 85%.

The Department of Energy states &quot;...if you leave the room for only up to 15 minutes, it will generally be more cost effective to leave the [florescent] light(s) on. In areas where electric rates are high and/or during peak demand periods, this period may be as low as 5 minutes.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This myth should have been confirmed for florescent bulbs.  The fact that all of the bulbs were burnt out after 6 weeks of cycling supports the myth.  During the 6 weeks, the bulbs would have been &#8220;on&#8221; for a total of only about 500 hours.  The published lifespan of a typical CFL bulb is over 10000 hours, which means the bulb only lasted 1/20th the amount of time that it was supposed to.  A study that used to be on the Department of Energy&#8217;s website got similar results and stated that cycling a CFL in 5 minute on/off intervals will shorten its lifetime by 85%.</p>
<p>The Department of Energy states &#8220;&#8230;if you leave the room for only up to 15 minutes, it will generally be more cost effective to leave the [florescent] light(s) on. In areas where electric rates are high and/or during peak demand periods, this period may be as low as 5 minutes.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: grandpa</title>
		<link>http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69/comment-page-1#comment-8312</link>
		<dc:creator>grandpa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 07:44:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69#comment-8312</guid>
		<description>I was trained in the us navy that if fluorescent lights would be off for less than 4 hours to just leave them on because it used more amp hours to turn them off and on again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was trained in the us navy that if fluorescent lights would be off for less than 4 hours to just leave them on because it used more amp hours to turn them off and on again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darko</title>
		<link>http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69/comment-page-1#comment-7275</link>
		<dc:creator>Darko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:14:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69#comment-7275</guid>
		<description>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</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>to James L.</p>
<p>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</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pat</title>
		<link>http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69/comment-page-1#comment-7246</link>
		<dc:creator>pat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:42:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mythbustersresults.com/episode69#comment-7246</guid>
		<description>here is an article from CNN about someone surviving a plane crash after free falling for 2 miles! http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/02/germany.aircrash.survivor/index.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>here is an article from CNN about someone surviving a plane crash after free falling for 2 miles! <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/02/germany.aircrash.survivor/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/02/germany.aircrash.survivor/index.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

