|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 8, 2013 23:29:42 GMT
This proposal cannot happen because I don't think the governments are willing to make an exception even for mythbusters - they have done 3 myths involving falling into water: hammer drop, concrete water, and mattress jump. this reminds me of the ill conceived (and usually fatal) attempts to go over Niagra Falls in a barrel. I personally think the barrel designs are fundamentally flawed - and based on the results for those three myths, I believe it is reasonable to conclude the whole design of the more popular barrel concepts are completely wrong for the goal.
perhaps we would like to tinker with a testing process to determine the parameters a barrel for an attempt with a reasonable chance of success would have to be designed for.
my concerns are the aeration of the water at the foot of the falls, and what effect it has, the fact that the position of the barrel will be somewhat random, the fact that the higher the displacement of the barrel, the faster it will decelerate on impact, and, of course, the depth of the water it lands in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 9, 2013 12:49:41 GMT
They would probably be willing to make an exception if the Barrel contains Buster, as the current laws are about stopping people from doing it - many have died trying - not about protecting crash test dummies. The main risks are the force of impact, and drowning. The base of a waterfall is a deep 'U' shaped pool worn away over the years by the water. This plunge pool has its own currents and eddies caused by the water falling into it, and these can be strong enough to keep even a barrel under the water for long periods. There is also the risk of an object/person being slammed into a rock or the bottom of the pool by the eddies. It should be noted that as far as I can tell none of the 'barrels' that have been used were wooden, or for that matter 'off the shelf' types of barrel. All of them seem to have been custom made, and at least one appears to have been iron. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagra_Falls#Over_the_falls |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 9, 2013 13:57:28 GMT
I'm not sure they would even make an exception for buster, because even though the mythbusters have the disclaimer, I expect it would trigger copycats.
as for the eddies, I suspect people are increasing the bouyancy of their barrels, for floatation, as well as increasing the volume, for air supply - which is increasing the impact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 9, 2013 14:43:03 GMT
Maybe we should consider this from a slightly different angle?
Lets say that the myth is that the real danger of going over a waterfall isn't in hitting the water, but in getting trapped in the plunge-pool at the bottom and either being unable to get to the surface before you drown or being battered to death as the currents dash you against the sides of the pool.
Using this angle would allow for a lot of potentially impressive 'small' scale testing as they could built their own waterfall (or falls) of various sizes in the shop to see how the pool is formed and what the currents are doing. They could then either look at running tests at a real waterfall (such as Niagra, if that is practical/possible) or build a larger version of their shop-model.
I'm thinking that they could probably create a waterfall at one of the lakes they use, pumping water out of the lake. This doesn't have to be to human scale, since they could carry out the testing with a mini-Buster or mini-skindaver (the latter would give them a very good idea as to what injuries a human is likely to suffer from a trip over a waterfall.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 9, 2013 14:52:17 GMT
I like that - "does a person REALLY get trapped in the pool below a waterfall" is a testable myth. they can do full size on-site testing, they can do dye tank tests, and they can do small scale tests. one think I know they will find is that the proportion between the size of the swimmer and the waterfall, and the shape of the splashdown pool will both affect the situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 9, 2013 15:21:57 GMT
Funny, I've read this idea a few times on other sites and never thought of changing the idea into something that could be tested - even though when I have replied to such posts I've always mentioned the plunge pool.
I'd say that the altered version could be a lot more interesting, and would certainly be a lot more practical, than the original. Heck, it might ironically be more impressive that Niagra Fall's if you think of the 'small' scale model being similar in size to the water tank Jamie built in M5 for Bullet Proof Water and the 'full' scale model being a similar size to the water-slide built for water-slide wipeout. Niagra is so large that it might be difficult to really get a feel for how large it really is. Where as such models could be compared directly to the cast.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 9, 2013 15:30:58 GMT
true. I'm still interested to see the effect on impact from the aeration and turbulence, too, though. and they should have a scale Niagara just so people can SEE the scale of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 10, 2013 2:40:24 GMT
Actually Niagra falls isn't all that high - at its tallest point (in Canada btw) it is *only* some 170 feet high - roughly 30 times the height of the average Western man*.
Compare this to Angel Falls, which is a whopping 3,200 feet tall...over 575 times the height of a man....
Basic maths (meaning, my attempts) would seem to show that if you were using a G.I Joe figure (9.5cm/3-3/4 inch tall) as Mini-Buster then a model of the Niagra Falls would be just under 3 meters tall**. Using the same Buster a similar scale model of Angel Falls would be some 55 metres/179 feet tall***.
The real reason Niagra Fall's is so dangerous is simply the amount of water going over it, and that can be controlled by varying the amount of water they are pumping to the top of their models.
(*The average height in the West for an adult male is five foot nine and a half)
(**Which is to say something that they could build in the shop as long as they are only interested in getting the height correct in scale. If they tried to get the width correct as well the model would have to be built through the building opposite M5. I'm guessing someone might complain if they tried that.)
(***Which is to say not really something that can build in the shop, unless Jamie REALLY wants to add another four floors to the building.)
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 10, 2013 3:44:06 GMT
Actually, the 2007+ crop of G. I. Joe figures are closer to 4 inches than 3.75, so you'll need to redo your math. edit - Here's a photo I did involving a 2007 Flint figure and a 1985 Lady Jaye figure (new head sculpt) - ironhold.deviantart.com/art/Coming-Home-112665827 (note: it's Deviant Art, and so I would recommend having Ad-Block Plus active). As you can see, their heads are level with each other... but her feet only come down to his knees. That wasn't a trick shot or anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Jun 10, 2013 23:52:11 GMT
I like that - "does a person REALLY get trapped in the pool below a waterfall" is a testable myth. There are a significant number of instances of kayakers drowning from being trapped in the 'rollers' beneath weirs that testify to the reality of the danger. As far as scaling the Niagara or Angel Falls plunge; physical forces don't scale easily. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 11, 2013 1:43:25 GMT
The actual figure I got was 2.75 metres.
I wasn't trying to be exact but giving an approximate figure to give an idea as to the size of such a build and to make an educated guess as to if such a thing might be possible to build in M5. As it turns out I *think* that 3 metres is roughly the same height as the large water tank Jamie build for Bullet Proof Water. (The one that ended up flooding the shop)
|
|
|
|
Post by srmarti on Jun 14, 2013 20:02:14 GMT
Seems to me that there's no real mystery to anyone that has done a moderate amount of research.
|
|
