Mythbusters in Science - Report Example

28 June Mythbusters in Science Introduction/background The segment of the show under consideration is Season Episode 4 where the hosts sought to dispel the myth that a penny dropped from the Empire state building would penetrate the ground or kill a person. In scientific terms, they wanted to establish whether height affects the impact of a falling object; this was a physics phenomenon that had been studied years ago by Galileo and scientists from NASA. Galileo had also conducted a similar experiment in his home country where he dropped objects from the leaning tower of Pisa as he was interested in determining whether the objects would fall at the same rate irrespective of their mass. Experimental method In the show, the presenters started by visiting the Empire State building and talking to veteran employees at the building; they realized that several other people had tried the experiment with minimal success. Most of their pennies did not even reach the ground as they stopped at the fifth, top-most storey; however, the hosts wanted to simulate their own environment in order to ascertain whether these assertions are in fact true. Wind speeds often came in the way of the movement of the coins as too much air would build up enough resistance to cause the coins to move up. Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman followed a two-step format in testing the myth during this show; first they replicated the circumstances and then duplicated it by expanding the parameters of the experiment. The myth under analysis is a coin will pass through concrete or penetrate a person’s skull and kill them when thrown from a high altitude. To replicate this circumstance, the hosts jumped from a plane and released pennies; they found that the coins went up rather than down, so the alleged results did not take place. Thereafter, they went about expanding the parameters in order to see whether they could recreate the outcomes stated in the myth; each person devised a solution that they would use in order to recreate the new parameters and hopefully find similar results. They simulated the human action of throwing a coin from a top building by using a modified riffle in order to fire the coin. It was released at the speed of about 3000 feet per second but did not pass through the concrete that was placed underneath and neither did it penetrate the ballistic skin recreated in the lab. The latter was a skull covered by gel that mimicked human skin, so it was slightly reliable; this was necessary for safety reasons and also to enhance the repeatability of their actions. The results were measured using a high speed camera, visual observation and determination of terminal velocity of the penny upon hitting the ground. First, they observed whether the skull was broken and whether the penny penetrated the concrete when it had two types of materials. Thereafter, they used a high speed camera as well as a measured scale placed beside the coin to assess the impact in the experiments (EiganoVids). The scientific method is predicated on the observation of the best evidence needed to discover, correct and improve upon the world. The first step of the method is problem identification where one determines the issue that one wants to tackle and then establishes the question that will solve it (Carey 31). Adam and Jamie did a decent job of identifying the problem, and their response to the challenge was to establish the terminal velocity of the coin and see whether this could create high impact. Terminal velocity in this case refers to the constant speed attained by a free-falling object when it stops accelerating any further owing to the resistance of the medium in which it is passing. After establishing the problem and making a hypothesis, the scientist must then collect data of the phenomenon under consideration through observation and other scientific instruments. The presenters also went through this step effectively as they first observed how coins behaved in free fall during the bungee jump. They then measured the terminal velocity of the penny when released from an improvised riffle, so they were testing their hypothesis. They also observed how the coin behaved when it hit the ballistic dummy as well as the improvised concrete in the lab. Once results have been collected, a scientist ought to organize and analyze that data in a manner that can be linked to the research question; owing to the short amount of time allocated for the show, this part was not shown. They co-presenters did not prove to the audience that the information they had found was somehow related to the hypothesis that they were trying to prove. It appears that they were mostly interested in what they could observe rather than what they could calculate and document through their equipment. Finally, one ought to make conclusions about one’s hypothesis after deducing the results; Adam and Jamie reacted to their findings on terminal velocity and came to a conclusion on what had happened. Results The team found that the myth was untrue; even after releasing the penny from a riffle at 3000 f/s, the penny only left minor imprints in the concentrate but did not go through it. Likewise, the simulated skull was also unaffected by the penny even though the outer gel, mimicking human flesh seem to move a little. However, when a bullet was placed in the riffle, it penetrated the skull and would thus have killed a real human; Adam and Jamie concluded that a penny thrown from the Empire State Building cannot kill a man or pass through the ground. This experiment was well-grounded in theory and their conclusions are fine, but would have been better answered if the presenters selected a clearer research question as one may have difficulties in associating terminal velocity with impact. If this experiment were repeated, it would be better to have the following research question; “does a penny dropped from a high distance hit the ground (or another object beneath) with a greater impact force than one that is dropped from a high distance?” Secondly, during the experimentation process, the authors should have a control group and an experimental one; the control in this case would be releasing the penny at a lower distance while the experiment would be a really high distance (Carey 93). They could have simulated these environments by simply calculating the terminal velocity of the penny when at the Empire state building then modifying the gun to have that velocity. Adam and Jamie should also have changed the release speed from the rifle and then used this to act as the control for the experiment. Those differences were not very clear when they aired the show as it appeared that the control group was not properly defined. A simpler way of performing this experience in the lab using less dramatic instruments and fewer calculations would be through the following experiment. The scientist should obtain a heavy ball and measure it, then get on a relatively tall building where the distance from the ground is well known. A box of sand should be placed at the bottom and one ought to drop the heavy ball into the sand; the distance the ball travels in the sand ought to be measured. The researcher ought to modify the distance of the building by reducing it or increasing it and measuring the depth of the ball in the sand. In order to measure the impact force, Newton’s second law will be used, F=Ma=M(dv/dt). Dv/dt = vf-vi/ tf-ti. Vf refers to final velocity while vi is the initial velocity and it is calculated using the formula for impact velocity =√ 2gh. A person ought to compare this impact force over the various ranges of distance in the building. The latter principles can also be practically applied in the construction industry where falling objects are quite common; people wear protective devices like helmets and boots in order to minimize this impact. Experiments can be done in order to study how effective certain materials are in minimizing the impact force of objects that fall from higher ground (Science Project par. 4). Conclusion Overall, the presenters in the show used the scientific method relatively effectively; they had a question, came up with a hypothesis, tested it and came up with conclusions. However, their initial question could have been scientifically altered in order to clarify the phenomenon under analysis. Furthermore, they needed to have clear control and experimental groups and should have improved on the data testing and analysis phase as these were not shown. Works Cited Carey Stephen. A beginner’s guide to scientific method. NY: Cengage Learning, 2011. print. EiganoVids. Mythbuster season 1 Episode 4: penny drop. 24 May 2013. Web. 27 Jun. 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK8rBkb7pSg Science Project. Impact force of falling object. 2012. Web. 27 Jun. 2014.http://www.scienceproject.com/projects/intro/senior/SP421.asp Read More