|
Post by the light works on Jun 25, 2013 17:08:28 GMT
Lets remember that Mythbusters use science in their show, they can if they wish chose to use a vehicle filled with fuel of differing temperatures to see if there is a difference, much like the tailgate up or down episode. Chemically X grams of petrol/gasoline has a certain calorific content, its science. of course it is. it doesn't mean the viewers will be able to comprehend a spreadsheet.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jun 25, 2013 17:18:22 GMT
Lets remember that Mythbusters use science in their show, they can if they wish chose to use a vehicle filled with fuel of differing temperatures to see if there is a difference, much like the tailgate up or down episode. Chemically X grams of petrol/gasoline has a certain calorific content, its science. of course it is. it doesn't mean the viewers will be able to comprehend a spreadsheet. Never sell viewers short, best way to educate people is to take them with you. The MB do this all the time. A scientific experiment followed by practical demonstration, Myth...........
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 25, 2013 17:20:26 GMT
of course it is. it doesn't mean the viewers will be able to comprehend a spreadsheet. Never sell viewers short, best way to educate people is to take them with you. The MB do this all the time. A scientific experiment followed by practical demonstration, Myth........... yes. the light bulb being the practical demonstration. (besides, you have to load the motor with SOMETHING)
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jun 25, 2013 17:33:29 GMT
Never sell viewers short, best way to educate people is to take them with you. The MB do this all the time. A scientific experiment followed by practical demonstration, Myth........... yes. the light bulb being the practical demonstration. (besides, you have to load the motor with SOMETHING) If they chose to demonstrate this myth to start with and they chose a light bulb as an indicator I would be surprised. But I don't make TV shows. I just discuss possible myths giving my view on them, I don't get too involved any more. Too many people are unappreciative.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 25, 2013 17:38:45 GMT
this was a common demonstration in electrical generation exhibits in science museums when I was young. you had a human powered generator powering an array of light bulbs. it provided a very good education on how counter EMF makes bootstrapping generators impossible.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jun 25, 2013 17:53:47 GMT
this was a common demonstration in electrical generation exhibits in science museums when I was young. you had a human powered generator powering an array of light bulbs. it provided a very good education on how counter EMF makes bootstrapping generators impossible. Without doing the numbers x ml @ 0C petrol/gasoline run through a generator set air temp x deg C will generate no noticeable unit of candelas difference than x ml @20c at a similar air temp.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 25, 2013 17:58:23 GMT
this was a common demonstration in electrical generation exhibits in science museums when I was young. you had a human powered generator powering an array of light bulbs. it provided a very good education on how counter EMF makes bootstrapping generators impossible. Without doing the numbers x ml @ 0C petrol/gasoline run through a generator set air temp x deg C will generate no noticeable unit of candelas difference than x ml @20c at a similar air temp. well, that's the original question - to put it in its most simple terminology - will 10000ml petrol at 0C still be 10000ml at 20C? the followup that involved the light bulb was, will an engine at x% throttle produce the same horsepower at 5C ambient temperature as it produces at 20C?
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jun 25, 2013 18:11:02 GMT
Without doing the numbers x ml @ 0C petrol/gasoline run through a generator set air temp x deg C will generate no noticeable unit of candelas difference than x ml @20c at a similar air temp. well, that's the original question - to put it in its most simple terminology - will 10000ml petrol at 0C still be 10000ml at 20C? the followup that involved the light bulb was, will an engine at x% throttle produce the same horsepower at 5C ambient temperature as it produces at 20C? To me an experiment fraught with so many variables to make the results questionable, but that's just me. BT for me
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 25, 2013 19:36:29 GMT
of course it is. it doesn't mean the viewers will be able to comprehend a spreadsheet. Never sell viewers short, best way to educate people is to take them with you. The MB do this all the time. A scientific experiment followed by practical demonstration, Myth........... Clearly you missed or have forgotten the 'Plane on a Treadmill' and 'Curving Bullet' threads from the old Disco site Mythbusters is a family entertainment science show, and as such has to tailor its content for viewers who's age ranges from 13* upwards and who's science background will range from 'did a little in high school 30 years ago' through to 'I have several PhD's and work for NASA'. Even the latter types of viewer are not going to have detailed knowledge of all areas of science - a physicist isn't going to know that much about biology, or a geologist much about aerodynamics even without considering specialisation in a particular field. MB have to cater their tests for all viewers, and tend to over simplify things on the (usually correct) grounds that those who have a better grasp of the science understand this is done to allow those with less knowledge to understand what is going on in the general sense. One of the 'demands' in regards ideas is that they need to be able to film tests in a 'visually interesting' way, or at the very least a way in which the results of testing can be seen rather than talked about. While they have started to use on screen graphs in recent years, they still use practical 'visual' tests first - if only because this is cheaper and easier than special effects. (*MB is rated as PG13, so technically this is the youngest age of viewers. However it is rather clear that there are a LOT of kids far younger than this who watch the show with or without their parents.) Your calculations regarding the calorific content of gasoline appear to miss the 'logic' of the myth; Substances have a greater density at lower temperatures. Greater density means more energy per given volume. Since fuel pumps only measure volume, then the logic is that the fuel you get contains more energy if it is cold. This does make sense if you think of it, although I strongly suspect that the difference is unnoticeable in the real world.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 26, 2013 4:14:31 GMT
you're being awfully optimistic about the average viewer's level of scientific education. I would estimate the low end at "I play gears of war"
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jun 26, 2013 10:10:10 GMT
I think Cyber meant the average viewer who's actually interested in the show and their results and not just the explosions
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 26, 2013 13:55:00 GMT
I think Cyber meant the average viewer who's actually interested in the show and their results and not just the explosions but unfortunately, the Nielsen machines don't know WHY someone watches...
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 26, 2013 14:08:27 GMT
I was thinking RC engine simply because of the size, which would make it easier to put them in controlled environments and require less fuel. (I also think they have several knocking around the shop). Nothing to stop them from using larger engines, and logically they'd have to do this as the full scale test. The problem with larger engines is that it is likely that they would have to get theirs second hand, and even if they manage to find two identical engines they are going to differ depending on how hard the vehicle had been driven and how many miles it had done. They could use a single engine, but this runs into time problems - they'd have to set everything up, run their tests then reset before they run the next one. This would take a lot of time and reduce the number of tests and temperatures they could do in the time they have to film. Even one additional engine would allow them to halve the time needed to run 'small-scale' tests, but this of course would require identical engines (or as identical as you can get) so the results could be compared.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 26, 2013 14:38:19 GMT
I was thinking RC engine simply because of the size, which would make it easier to put them in controlled environments and require less fuel. (I also think they have several knocking around the shop). Nothing to stop them from using larger engines, and logically they'd have to do this as the full scale test. The problem with larger engines is that it is likely that they would have to get theirs second hand, and even if they manage to find two identical engines they are going to differ depending on how hard the vehicle had been driven and how many miles it had done. They could use a single engine, but this runs into time problems - they'd have to set everything up, run their tests then reset before they run the next one. This would take a lot of time and reduce the number of tests and temperatures they could do in the time they have to film. Even one additional engine would allow them to halve the time needed to run 'small-scale' tests, but this of course would require identical engines (or as identical as you can get) so the results could be compared. it's a catch-22. my understanding is air cooled engines are a lot more subject to variances due to ambient heat - which may skew the results.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jun 26, 2013 15:42:50 GMT
Never sell viewers short, best way to educate people is to take them with you. The MB do this all the time. A scientific experiment followed by practical demonstration, Myth........... Clearly you missed or have forgotten the 'Plane on a Treadmill' and 'Curving Bullet' threads from the old Disco site Mythbusters is a family entertainment science show, and as such has to tailor its content for viewers who's age ranges from 13* upwards and who's science background will range from 'did a little in high school 30 years ago' through to 'I have several PhD's and work for NASA'. Even the latter types of viewer are not going to have detailed knowledge of all areas of science - a physicist isn't going to know that much about biology, or a geologist much about aerodynamics even without considering specialisation in a particular field. MB have to cater their tests for all viewers, and tend to over simplify things on the (usually correct) grounds that those who have a better grasp of the science understand this is done to allow those with less knowledge to understand what is going on in the general sense. One of the 'demands' in regards ideas is that they need to be able to film tests in a 'visually interesting' way, or at the very least a way in which the results of testing can be seen rather than talked about. While they have started to use on screen graphs in recent years, they still use practical 'visual' tests first - if only because this is cheaper and easier than special effects. (*MB is rated as PG13, so technically this is the youngest age of viewers. However it is rather clear that there are a LOT of kids far younger than this who watch the show with or without their parents.) Your calculations regarding the calorific content of gasoline appear to miss the 'logic' of the myth; Substances have a greater density at lower temperatures. Greater density means more energy per given volume. Since fuel pumps only measure volume, then the logic is that the fuel you get contains more energy if it is cold. This does make sense if you think of it, although I strongly suspect that the difference is unnoticeable in the real world. Nah I took part in some of the poat, not the bit where sithdarth and c'estmoi went on for pages at a time but some place after the Russians became a pivotal part. Previously I commented that I don't make TV shows just comment on myths. MB researchers pick myths others decide on how they are to be planned for TV not me again. As you are fully aware density is the mass of a substance per unit of volume at a specified temperature. Under SI units kgm -3. So each litre of fuel at x temperature will have y grammes of mass ie @ 16C 737 grammes/L (737kgm -3 ). If as previously stated fuel temperature in the underground tank remains constant throughout the year then the pumps will deliver the same amount per indicated litre each time within permissible limits of error as set out by regulations. What happens after is up to ambient temperature. As for the MB team turning this into a visual experience, that's what they do and do so well, its really not up to me to write the script for them.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 26, 2013 15:57:18 GMT
Clearly you missed or have forgotten the 'Plane on a Treadmill' and 'Curving Bullet' threads from the old Disco site Mythbusters is a family entertainment science show, and as such has to tailor its content for viewers who's age ranges from 13* upwards and who's science background will range from 'did a little in high school 30 years ago' through to 'I have several PhD's and work for NASA'. Even the latter types of viewer are not going to have detailed knowledge of all areas of science - a physicist isn't going to know that much about biology, or a geologist much about aerodynamics even without considering specialisation in a particular field. MB have to cater their tests for all viewers, and tend to over simplify things on the (usually correct) grounds that those who have a better grasp of the science understand this is done to allow those with less knowledge to understand what is going on in the general sense. One of the 'demands' in regards ideas is that they need to be able to film tests in a 'visually interesting' way, or at the very least a way in which the results of testing can be seen rather than talked about. While they have started to use on screen graphs in recent years, they still use practical 'visual' tests first - if only because this is cheaper and easier than special effects. (*MB is rated as PG13, so technically this is the youngest age of viewers. However it is rather clear that there are a LOT of kids far younger than this who watch the show with or without their parents.) Your calculations regarding the calorific content of gasoline appear to miss the 'logic' of the myth; Substances have a greater density at lower temperatures. Greater density means more energy per given volume. Since fuel pumps only measure volume, then the logic is that the fuel you get contains more energy if it is cold. This does make sense if you think of it, although I strongly suspect that the difference is unnoticeable in the real world. Nah I took part in some of the poat, not the bit where sithdarth and c'estmoi went on for pages at a time but some place after the Russians became a pivotal part. Previously I commented that I don't make TV shows just comment on myths. MB researchers pick myths others decide on how they are to be planned for TV not me again. As you are fully aware density is the mass of a substance per unit of volume at a specified temperature. Under SI units kgm -3. So each litre of fuel at x temperature will have y grammes of mass ie @ 16C 737 grammes/L (737kgm -3 ). If as previously stated fuel temperature in the underground tank remains constant throughout the year then the pumps will deliver the same amount per indicated litre each time within permissible limits of error as set out by regulations. What happens after is up to ambient temperature. As for the MB team turning this into a visual experience, that's what they do and do so well, its really not up to me to write the script for them. you are referring to the "they did the wrong myth because they didn't get the results I wanted" phase of the debate?
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jun 26, 2013 16:07:46 GMT
Nah I took part in some of the poat, not the bit where sithdarth and c'estmoi went on for pages at a time but some place after the Russians became a pivotal part. Previously I commented that I don't make TV shows just comment on myths. MB researchers pick myths others decide on how they are to be planned for TV not me again. As you are fully aware density is the mass of a substance per unit of volume at a specified temperature. Under SI units kgm -3. So each litre of fuel at x temperature will have y grammes of mass ie @ 16C 737 grammes/L (737kgm -3 ). If as previously stated fuel temperature in the underground tank remains constant throughout the year then the pumps will deliver the same amount per indicated litre each time within permissible limits of error as set out by regulations. What happens after is up to ambient temperature. As for the MB team turning this into a visual experience, that's what they do and do so well, its really not up to me to write the script for them. you are referring to the "they did the wrong myth because they didn't get the results I wanted" phase of the debate? Nope I have no preferred outcome, I discuss purely from what I hope is a reasonable scientific standpoint. In the long term what I may, or may not, "think" is not a consideration for the MB team. Any myth put up by this forum should be able to stand up to some scrutiny not just slaps on the back. Again that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 26, 2013 16:19:26 GMT
you are referring to the "they did the wrong myth because they didn't get the results I wanted" phase of the debate? Nope I have no preferred outcome, I discuss purely from what I hope is a reasonable scientific standpoint. In the long term what I may, or may not, "think" is not a consideration for the MB team. Any myth put up by this forum should be able to stand up to some scrutiny not just slaps on the back. Again that's just me. I was referring to the part of the POAT thread where the argument shifted from the physics of the plane on the treadmill to the phrasing of the question. - culminating with the accusation that the Mythbusters were not addressing the correct question, because the "REAL" question was phrased such that the treadmill prevented the plane from moving.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jun 26, 2013 16:23:08 GMT
Nope I have no preferred outcome, I discuss purely from what I hope is a reasonable scientific standpoint. In the long term what I may, or may not, "think" is not a consideration for the MB team. Any myth put up by this forum should be able to stand up to some scrutiny not just slaps on the back. Again that's just me. I was referring to the part of the POAT thread where the argument shifted from the physics of the plane on the treadmill to the phrasing of the question. - culminating with the accusation that the Mythbusters were not addressing the correct question, because the "REAL" question was phrased such that the treadmill prevented the plane from moving. That would be off topic for this thread, so I pass
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 26, 2013 16:29:00 GMT
I was referring to the part of the POAT thread where the argument shifted from the physics of the plane on the treadmill to the phrasing of the question. - culminating with the accusation that the Mythbusters were not addressing the correct question, because the "REAL" question was phrased such that the treadmill prevented the plane from moving. That would be off topic for this thread, so I pass that said, I buy fuel when I am passing within a half mile of the fuel depot I get fuel at; and am within 50-100 miles of being out of fuel. burning 2 extra gallons of diesel in the hope that I will get a free tablespoon does not seem like good economics to me.
|
|