Fictional Weapons

An immediate problem that springs to mind in testing fictional weapons is finding someone sufficiently skilled in their use to make the test a valid one.

If you're simply testing whether a weapon is a danger to the user then there are plenty of real-world weapons that, in the hands of a novice, would fulfill that criteria. I imagine that what you're aiming for is the determination that a fictional weapon could never be mastered to a point where the user is not at constant risk. So not only would they need to make the weapons, they would need to develop training courses that would pinpoint the risks to the user and, if possible, invent techniques that counter those risks. They would then need to follow those courses to the point where they were considered to be adept in the weapon's use (if not a master)...which sounds like a lengthy process...especially if they're doing several different weapons.

Actually you could compare comparable weapons against each other, if the user is equally skilled with both. (So someone who is totally unused to using a sword would be quite capable of testing the validity of the Bat'leth design)

It also depends on the nature of the testing, you can certainly test to see the speed at which they could move a blade (for example) to parry blows and measure the force of impact and damage it could do. You couldn't put on a 'real' fight unless both combatants were at least roughly equally skilled, but I'd guess that there are a lot of Trek fans out there who have a fair amount of experience with the Bat'leth. (It was designed by a martial arts expert for TNG, and I think that the techniques for using it were written down and practiced today)

The trick arrows are certainly testable, I think at least one of the build team is a reasonably skilled archer as the bow they have used before in some tests was provided by them - I *think* it was Tory's bow. In this case you are looking at how effective the projectile is, and it probably wouldn't take too long for them to come to a conclusion one way or another and they should be able to run such tests without outside help.

The chain-sword I would tend to dismiss on several levels, not just the danger of trying to use one. One of these would be the risk that someone might mess around with a chainsaw and kill themselves after watching such an episode.

The Batarang would certainly seem testable, as they could compare it against throwing stars and boomerangs (some of the Batarangs return to the thrower, others don't). The Cracked article claimed that the Batarang was a bad design because you'd remove a few fingers trying to catch it, ignoring the fact that they are largely disposable weapons and rarely return after hitting someone. They could also test to see if it could cut through ropes, which is a particular trick he get to see fairly often. (The same holds for an arrow, which is also testable. Not least because there were, as I recall, a number of arrow head designs intended to cut rope.)

boomerangs are typically not edged weapons - but still have an inherent risk. the other bust on the(x)arang myths is that if they hit the target, they don't keep going.

my thinking on the chain sword is that it will prove to be a total failure, thus reducing the risk.

where do we draw the line? they can do that with anything.

hence the robot - as well as actually hitting something too hard for it and throwing a chain - and hurting their robot.

really, everybody who actually uses a chain saw knows that they don't slice - they chew.

just so - they WILL tinker whether they see it on mythbusters or not. the question is whether mythbusters will show them how to make one that actually works.

other than the challenged of making an EMP, I like it. not sure the nuclear regulatory folks would want them using the traditional EMP generating procedure.

No, the question/point is that someone stupid enough to try it at home can't turn around and point their remaining finger at Mythbusters when something bad happens.

A bigger concern is that MB has a fair number of kid viewers (even though its not a kids show), and a chainsaw is something those kids might well have access to at home. Duelling with a chainsaw might be something kids might decide to do because it looks fun, and even if they don't fire the thing up they could still be hurt as a result.

This is different from most things they test, in that someone could pick up and 'test' this at home on the spur of the moment. Rather than having to build/buy things that allows time for them to realise the dangers, be told of them or be stopped by someone who realises how dangerous what they want to do really is.



Yeap, and some of those people are martial arts experts to some degree. It wouldn't be all that difficult to get help from various Star Trek fan clubs in the SF area. Heck, they could find a few hundred people the next time they go to Com-Con. All they'd have to do is throw a rare Worf Action figure into the crowd and talk to the survivors....

You could get a small EMP pulse using microwaves or vacuum tubes.

Come to think of it if they look at this particular idea and decide that it viable (depending on exactly how small something would have to be to be considered as a 'gun') they could always spin off the original idea to cover myths about the effect an EMP actually has on electronics. Such as it frying unshielded electric circuits entirely. They inadvertently got an EMP discharge when testing lightning myths, and one that was powerful enough to knock one of the cameras out. I can't, however, remember if the camera was totalled or just knocked out for a few moments.

What about the HUGE swords beloved of video game developers? Great-swords were certainly real, but how large could you really make a sword before it is effectively useless in a fight?

There is the Chakram, as seen in the TV series Xena; Warrior Princess (it is a real weapon apparently, but most viewers probably would not be aware of this). Might be a good companion to the Batarang.

I think this has potential, so lets see what other ideas we could come up with.