|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Jul 20, 2013 3:41:18 GMT
Ok I know it was discussed a bit on the old forum, but did we ever define the terms of the expression ”Killing Two Birds With One Stone” for a testable myth?
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jul 20, 2013 14:15:20 GMT
How about "Is it possible to successfully shoot two or more (potentially mobile) targets with a single projectile, the projectile being fired once and hitting both without being fired a second time?"
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 20, 2013 20:30:33 GMT
not exactly birds, but this kind of demonstrates the concept.
of course, I think the original expression referred more to luck than planning. - just my unsupported opinion.
|
|
|
Post by blindleader on Jul 23, 2013 6:03:25 GMT
Tom Selleck did it in Quigley Down Under. Of course the birds were a couple of bad guys and the stone was a slug from an 1874 Sharps. Oh, and that was just a movie.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jul 25, 2013 14:19:06 GMT
Not sure I would agree with the luck part , I have often heard it used for doing things with good planning.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 25, 2013 14:42:25 GMT
the luck part involves having the alignment available.
the concept reminds me of the old off color joke with the punch line, "hang on, I think I can save you a bullet"
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 25, 2013 16:17:21 GMT
One big stone, lots of dead birds.
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Jul 30, 2013 3:18:54 GMT
I'm just wondering if this thread is really in the right place. Shouldn't it be moved to the Idioms & Sayings category rather than stay here in the Strange Ideas category?
{Moved as requested - CM}
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 31, 2013 13:07:45 GMT
How about "Is it possible to successfully shoot two or more (potentially mobile) targets with a single projectile, the projectile being fired once and hitting both without being fired a second time?" Well to be pedantic yes, in fact MB already proved this when they punched a hole through several pigs with cannon... I think that in order to stay within the meaning of the saying we need to be a little clearer. 'Is it possible to throw a stone or propel one using a sling or slingshot and hit two or more targets (specifically birds*) with enough force to kill both?' (*Well, bird stand ins with force meters and knowing the MB's probably a pressure sensor that makes them squawk when hit.)
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jul 31, 2013 18:57:17 GMT
Thing is, the experiment would have to be designed in such a capacity that the single projectile manages to hit both targets on the same throw.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 31, 2013 19:11:44 GMT
Thing is, the experiment would have to be designed in such a capacity that the single projectile manages to hit both targets on the same throw. The logical way to go about doing this would to split the myth into two testable parts; First would be to see if a throwing stone will deflect off a soft target like a bird in a fairly predictable way - meaning that someone *might* be capable of being able to pull of such a shot/throw if they had enough skill. My initial thought here was 'not a chance', but then if you are picking stones for throwing or hunting you'd presumably pick smooth stones of similar size and weight. So it could turn out that throwing stones are more consistent that we'd expect. The second part is the force of a throw or shot. The shot needs to not only be powerful enough to kill a bird, but have enough energy to kill even after hitting its initial target. While the MB's could test the speed of a thrown stone themselves, and likewise with a sling shot I suspect that they might have to call in outside help from someone who knows how to use a sling. (They could also bring in a professional baseball pitcher to see exactly how hard someone could really throw a stone.) Once they know the average speed of a thrown stone they can use an air cannon to duplicate this, allowing them to move onto creating the ideal scenario for pulling off such a shot using the experience gained from the deflection testing. If they could do it using the rig they could end with trying to do the shot themselves.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 1, 2013 1:08:56 GMT
Thing is, the experiment would have to be designed in such a capacity that the single projectile manages to hit both targets on the same throw. The logical way to go about doing this would to split the myth into two testable parts; First would be to see if a throwing stone will deflect off a soft target like a bird in a fairly predictable way - meaning that someone *might* be capable of being able to pull of such a shot/throw if they had enough skill. My initial thought here was 'not a chance', but then if you are picking stones for throwing or hunting you'd presumably pick smooth stones of similar size and weight. So it could turn out that throwing stones are more consistent that we'd expect. The second part is the force of a throw or shot. The shot needs to not only be powerful enough to kill a bird, but have enough energy to kill even after hitting its initial target. While the MB's could test the speed of a thrown stone themselves, and likewise with a sling shot I suspect that they might have to call in outside help from someone who knows how to use a sling. (They could also bring in a professional baseball pitcher to see exactly how hard someone could really throw a stone.) Once they know the average speed of a thrown stone they can use an air cannon to duplicate this, allowing them to move onto creating the ideal scenario for pulling off such a shot using the experience gained from the deflection testing. If they could do it using the rig they could end with trying to do the shot themselves. baseball pitcher test done not looking good unless you can get a head shot.
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Aug 1, 2013 12:00:14 GMT
How about "Is it possible to successfully shoot two or more (potentially mobile) targets with a single projectile, the projectile being fired once and hitting both without being fired a second time?" Well to be pedantic yes, in fact MB already proved this when they punched a hole through several pigs with cannon... I think that in order to stay within the meaning of the saying we need to be a little clearer. 'Is it possible to throw a stone or propel one using a sling or slingshot and hit two or more targets (specifically birds*) with enough force to kill both?' (*Well, bird stand ins with force meters and knowing the MB's probably a pressure sensor that makes them squawk when hit.) If they add ‘exploding’ feathers as they’re hit I’m gonna die laughing.
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Aug 1, 2013 12:07:55 GMT
The logical way to go about doing this would to split the myth into two testable parts; First would be to see if a throwing stone will deflect off a soft target like a bird in a fairly predictable way - meaning that someone *might* be capable of being able to pull of such a shot/throw if they had enough skill. My initial thought here was 'not a chance', but then if you are picking stones for throwing or hunting you'd presumably pick smooth stones of similar size and weight. So it could turn out that throwing stones are more consistent that we'd expect. The second part is the force of a throw or shot. The shot needs to not only be powerful enough to kill a bird, but have enough energy to kill even after hitting its initial target. While the MB's could test the speed of a thrown stone themselves, and likewise with a sling shot I suspect that they might have to call in outside help from someone who knows how to use a sling. (They could also bring in a professional baseball pitcher to see exactly how hard someone could really throw a stone.) Once they know the average speed of a thrown stone they can use an air cannon to duplicate this, allowing them to move onto creating the ideal scenario for pulling off such a shot using the experience gained from the deflection testing. If they could do it using the rig they could end with trying to do the shot themselves. baseball pitcher test done not looking good unless you can get a head shot. Whenever I think of this idiom I always think of two moving targets being hit. ie: The stone is aimed at target A it hits & passes glances/bounces off the target, & due to Newtons Law continues its onwards trajectory (all be it at a slower rate due to its lost inertia.) Then a few seconds later it hits target B as their paths collide taking out target B as well.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 1, 2013 12:19:22 GMT
The logical way to go about doing this would to split the myth into two testable parts; First would be to see if a throwing stone will deflect off a soft target like a bird in a fairly predictable way - meaning that someone *might* be capable of being able to pull of such a shot/throw if they had enough skill. My initial thought here was 'not a chance', but then if you are picking stones for throwing or hunting you'd presumably pick smooth stones of similar size and weight. So it could turn out that throwing stones are more consistent that we'd expect. The second part is the force of a throw or shot. The shot needs to not only be powerful enough to kill a bird, but have enough energy to kill even after hitting its initial target. While the MB's could test the speed of a thrown stone themselves, and likewise with a sling shot I suspect that they might have to call in outside help from someone who knows how to use a sling. (They could also bring in a professional baseball pitcher to see exactly how hard someone could really throw a stone.) Once they know the average speed of a thrown stone they can use an air cannon to duplicate this, allowing them to move onto creating the ideal scenario for pulling off such a shot using the experience gained from the deflection testing. If they could do it using the rig they could end with trying to do the shot themselves. baseball pitcher test done not looking good unless you can get a head shot. Birds are more fragile than you'd think - they have hollow bones.
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Aug 1, 2013 13:23:18 GMT
Ok so that then raises the question of just how would the Mythbusters determine that they had in fact 'killed' the mythical birds once they've hit them I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 1, 2013 13:43:43 GMT
Ok so that then raises the question of just how would the Mythbusters determine that they had in fact 'killed' the mythical birds once they've hit them I wonder? They'd have to do a little research as to what type of impact would kill a bird - there are recommendations as to how powerful a gun is needs to be for hunting small animals out there. This wouldn't require them to do any testing, any more than they needed to do testing as to what sort of force will kill a human. If they wanted to do their own testing then a birds skeleton in a ballistic gel body would do.
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Aug 1, 2013 14:03:37 GMT
Ok so that then raises the question of just how would the Mythbusters determine that they had in fact 'killed' the mythical birds once they've hit them I wonder? They'd have to do a little research as to what type of impact would kill a bird - there are recommendations as to how powerful a gun is needs to be for hunting small animals out there. This wouldn't require them to do any testing, any more than they needed to do testing as to what sort of force will kill a human. If they wanted to do their own testing then a birds skeleton in a ballistic gel body would do. They'd be better off using fresh bones from something like a chicken - dried & cooked bones are far more brittle & wouldn't have the same flexibility/elasticity as 'living' bones & would give them a skewed result.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 1, 2013 14:30:03 GMT
There is a bone shop in SF where they have bought bones before - I seem to recall they got a human skull from there. The shop also has a lot of animal bones.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 1, 2013 14:41:30 GMT
baseball pitcher test done not looking good unless you can get a head shot. Birds are more fragile than you'd think - they have hollow bones. but watch the trajectory of the ball after impact.
|
|