How to make fans happy: 1. Admit errors publicly instead of hiding them or sugar coating them. 2. Make a whole episode even though you have already checked it in small scale. It is so clear how unnecessary that 4 car smashing was and yet so nice that they did it. Best of the best.
@@kuhluhOGThat could have something to do with it... I've noticed that Binajay Science has bought some licences for a lot of the episodes, but I'd be surprised if that was a condition. I'd dare say they were able to get the rights cheap due to their educational media status and the fact that the production company is Australian (which means the government gives out incentives to make them as accessible as possible). There could be some technical reasons, like if you go and check out a lot of the old Top Gear uploads the sound mixing is way out and for whatever reason the BBC hasn't bothered to go back remaster them to work properly with TH-cam's software. Perhaps it's just not economical to bother when they're getting the views anyway. I'm gonna admit I am way out of my wheelhouse here, but I have someone who works for me that will definitely know the answer. I will make a note to remember to ask him next time we're in the same place at the same time.
Seeing Buster finally getting his socks blown off made my week! Him standing there with his leather legs, woolen socks, laser controlled release system getting hit by 10000x the force of a human punch and then the happiness of the crew "Did his socks come off before his feet did?" xD
The question would be, if that applied force would actually cut a human in half before knocking socks off. Not everybody wears a steel plate, most people dont..
What I think happens is that the "crunch zone" of a car is X units, whereas the crunch zone of a wall is usually 0 units. So from the point of the car, each dissipates their own energy against the other car. Kind of a newton's cradle. But from the original myth, the center car was the one in the middle between the trucks. And that gets hit with the same energy from both sides, so that should add up...
Crashing 2 Cars moving relative to the ground, one at 50m/s and the other one at -50m/s Is equivalent of diving a car moving at 100m/s relative to the ground and hitting another car moving at 0m/s relative to the ground. The compression in the small scale was not the same because both car compress so the kinetic energy Is dissipated in 2 Cars, when 1 car hits the Wall instead the deformation of the Wall Is transcurable and almost all the Energy Is dissipated in the compression of the clay.
I have worked as a bouncer and I have definitely seen socks come off I think it is more to do with pivoting and friction in a shoe or more accurately a boot. When I have seen this occur the person is wearing an minimally laced boot with a fairly open top. I don't think it's the actual force of the punch but the ensuing struggle to stay upright that steals the sock
There's another factor that was not considered in this retest, but then again, said factor wouldn't apply to a punch with a human strength either, I believe. Under significant G, the human body acts more like a liquid and deforms. This is what makes motorcyclists get flewn off of their shoes (and socks) when they crash. Their feet simply become smaller and more maleable, thus slide out easier. The skin on Buster may have been...well...skin...but its inside didn't deform from the hit like a human leg would.
I saw video showing kid being hit by a car going only around 15-20mph and the force of impact send his adidas like shoes flying, so there is def. somethink about having shoes on.
Isn’t in the clay test in the first test it had to deform one and in the second it had to deform two clay cylinder? So the energy is split into two deformation.
Exactly this. Also you get two times X in between the trucks they where testing with. Which is the time Jamie did his statement while a car was smashed in between two trucks, in which case the car is hit with 2 times X, while each truck get's 1 time X.
Yes. And it is the same thing with those cars. The energy of two cars going against each other is double the energy of one car, but it's divided between them. Each car has it's own deformation zone and IF they have a similar weight and build, it's evenly distributed.
I think if you had a static 3rd piece of clay between the contact point of the hammers, at 1 X the clay at the middle would receive most of the damage and the two cars"hammers" clay would be half of the standard 1 X test. Not sure if I'm correct but I think that's how it would work
@@mikenz6829 I'm sure that clay betwen two hammers whould have very similar deformation to that with one hammer and a wall. According to the netwon's third law, wall whould push the clay the same way that hammer does. The only diffrence is the inertia of the clay itself, so to be 100% true the clay should be weightless.
Strange how they never pointed out the flaw in Jamies original statement, or tested that version of it: two identical cars hitting each other at 50 mph should be identical to one hitting a stationary one at 100 mph
I mean it is a similar myth to “if you shoot a ball going 50mph behind you while going 50mph it will come out at 0mph” which they did test and could simply take the outcome of that and they outcome of this to get a pretty good assumption on what would happen
Another awesome video. You can't go wrong with watching Mythbusters right before going to work. Can you please upload the episode that has my two favourite myths they've ever tested that being Waterslide Wipeout and Right Turns Only.
I've even seen motorcycle shoes/boots being knocked off when crashed, and indeed it was a big deadly crash but the boots and socks were knocked off. Back in the day watching mythbusters I never would understand why. Watching this back brings me back with the knowledge of now. Thank you ❤
The original question Jamie was commenting on involved a stationary object (a small car) being hit at both ends at the same time by two vehicles travelling at 50 mph. Which you would have to test by placing a small car up against the steel crash wall and slamming into it at 100 mph and comparing those results to the original experiment. And is "One way or another, it's all just shrapnel" available on a t-shirt? I'm picturing the quote in maybe four lines, with a graphic moustache draped over the top line.
Was going to say the same. They crashed a car from two sides with two tracks. It wasn't just two tracks crashing into each other. So they tested different situation. Even though I like that they did it like this. I mean it is often said that two cars crashing into each other is equal to one crashing into a wall at combined speed. Was nice to see them testing this and getting the result which seems counterintuitive until you really think it through.
In that case Jamie would have been closer to being right... but still not quite because we're not dealing with perfect objects. If you took a measurement of the impact on a theoretical zero-mass object being hit by the two cars of the same mass at 50mph and compared that to the force of an object between a "perfectly solid" wall and a car going at 100mph then you would get the same measurement (as the kinetic energy all transfers perfectly from this zero mass object into the objects that absorb said kinetic energy). If the object in the middle is absorbing that kinetic energy then all objects absorbing the kinetic energy need to be taken into account. Incomplete diagrams are the source of most misunderstandings when it comes to physics.
Still wrong. if you have two trucks hitting a car in the middle you have 3 objects crumbling and absorbing energy. If you hit a car against a wall you only have two.
@@detorrV2 You have three: the truck, the car, and the wall. Each of these objects "absorbs" and reacts ("pushes back" in an equal-and-opposite Newtonian sense) in different proportions, with the wall mostly reacting and the car doing a lot of absorbing, but they're all involved in both directions.
That's very possible. Force needed to take your's shoes off is mass * acceleration, so with boots that weight 10x the socks, you need 10x less acceleration.
i think the biggest issue with "knocking the socks off" is that they are missing the human element. if you get punched, you might just flail your leg and thus "throw" the sock off. and yes, that works, as you can just do that with very lose wool socks.
Who has ever been in a situation where your socks got knocked off or almost off and wasn't wearing shoes? Test fails on the basic premise of the myth, socks implies shoes.
Do you live in America? Come to Europe and look at the houses there. I admit that if you'd drive a car with 160km/h against a regular German one-family-house, it's gonna make a hole in the wall, but I'm not sure you'd break through any load bearing walls. Whereas in the US, the regular house ... well - the car is probably going right through.
When I was 8 I got hit by a car, I picked up my shoe AND sock and limped home with the driver following me (stranger danger I was told not to get into strange cars). Only one shoe and sock came off but off they came.
I have a big problem with them talking about the energy exerted on, in this case, Buster... it's not just the energy, but (also) the speed, that matters (in this case). Imagine a huuuuuge ball of steal weighing, say, 500 million tons hitting a skyscraper at 1 mph... it would exert an ENORMOUS amount of energy and very like bring the whole building down. If it hit Buster though, it would only gently push him slowly forward.... and _definitely_ not knock his socks off !! Kinetic energy is K.E. = ½ * mass (kg) * v (m/s) squared, so that's = 0.5 * 500.000.000 * (0,44704 * 0,44704) = 50 million joules = 50.000.000 newton meters... but Buster could still just stand there, have a sip of beer and even hold on to it getting hit by that ball.
Thanks to the power of cameras everywhere I have now seen video proof of people literally getting their socks knocked off, some lets just say violently to their determent, and others where they do walk away from it! It's possible in some of those cases their socks got 'pinched' in their shoes to help with this. Most of these cases weren't punches, though. I only remember seeing a single instance where it was a punch but the person tripping over backwards seemed to have more to do with it
Basic relativity: At rest, the relative velocity of car A to car B is zero. If car A travels towards car B at 50mph, its relative velocity is 50mph. If car B then travels towards car A at 50mph, the relative velocity of car A is 100mph, the sum of velocities of both cars. Conversely, if car B moves at 50mph away from car A, the relative velocity is again zero. However, this is just a measure of energy, which is then distributed through the system (ie both cars) in the form of big crunch.
well.....if 2 cars hit each other you will have double the damage, because there are 2 cars, total destruction then is the same as 1 twice the speed (total destruction in the area, not on each car). People think "but wont there be twice the energy/destruction?". Yes, there is twice the desctruction, both cars are damaged equaly.
i actually think it would be easier to knock the socks off if they wore shoes. more mass tying the socks down so less energy needed to pull the feet out of the socks.
Two cars colliding at a combined speed of 100 mph do produce twice the amount of damage, but there is also twice as much matter to absorb that energy, so each car will experience the same amount of damage as if it were colliding with a rigid wall. But things change if the masses and/or stiffnesses of the cars are not equal.
I remember after this aired, expanding a bit on the swing impact rig trials in physics class (iiish dating myself hard there). The physics we got but we wanted to test what actually happened at the point of impact between the bodies. Like what would be the "impact force" there - would that be the same? - But our results had poor repeatability and no good data. We tried attaching different types of load cells and shock sensors to the leading surface of one of the swinging masses (and compensating for its weight on the other), but we couldn't access or afford types actually made for it so they either gave very variable data or broke on impact before giving a rational reading.
if you think about it, one 3000 lbs car hitting another stationary 3000lbs car would move the car backwards. A wall wouldn't move. So the stationary car moving with equal speed would kind of simulate the wall not moving.
interestingly, they say if you are on a two lane road and you cannot get out of the way of a car on the wrong side of the road (one is trying to pass) they say stop your vehicle... because you are not bringing any momentum to the equation, your car will likely experience far less damage (though it will still likely be a write-off) but since you experience less acceleration, injuries will also be minimal compared to the moving car.
When one car stands and other crashes into it deformation is going to spread on both cars, making damage on each car less. If both cars move then there's more deformation as there's more energy in the impact. Now, one other reason might be that if you stop your car it will get bumped backwards. Some part of the impact energy will get transferred to backward movement (no inertia that would push car forward effectively squashing it).
@@d4slaimless yes but the amount faced by the occupents, going from 0 to 10mph very quickly will be a sharp decline compared to the oncoming car of say 40mph to 0.
@@adam346 nope, if both cars weigh the same then they will both experience the same G forces. The moving car will go from 40mph to 20, and the stopped car will go from 0 to 20 backwards. That being said, on most roads the best thing you can do is slow down as much as you can before driving right off the road into the ditch and avoid big trees
@@adam346 standing on the brake to brace for impact would cause more damage to your car because the force would translate into crushing your car (and the other car, only slightly) instead of moving it backwards. Of course your car will still move backwards unless your car is very large and heavy comparatively, so the difference in damage won't be very significant. Still it would be interesting to test this out.
technically speaking I'd argue that Jamie was still somewhat right in the "overal scale". cause the 2 50MPH cars, did result in 2 cars looking like they had a 50MPH crash. so the overall damage and force was around double. But since this force was spread over 2 cars rather than 1, the damage per car was NOT equal to the damage of 1 car hitting a wall at 100MPH and as such not a good equivalent. interesting how it's only like...half false :p
I think one of life little (and I mean really little) is when your sock comes straight of without going inside out... I want that sock remover machine mounted in my house haha
A couple of the things I learned from this show are: some things I have known to be true are not; therefore, it is highly likely there are many other falsities in many other subjects in my knowledge banks, and because of this I need to be able to accept being wrong no matter how strong I feel about it if I want to do better in life. Another is some things I have heard are insignificant and unimportant as information. Crashing cars has importance, socks coming off is of no importance.
Looks like the ankle kept the sock on, if they had had Buster "looking" the other way to begin with it might've just slipped off on the earlier test. It wouldn't have fit exactly with the myth at that point, but how they did it doesn't really either.
HELLO MythBuster !!! Can redo this experiment ? I am not convinced. Jamie may not be wrong with his theory about 2 car colliding with each at 50mph with 100mph impact. When they do a single swing test, it's the Clay hitting onto a solid war, lets say it compress 1.5inch. When they made both clay to swing at 50mph each to collide against each other, now the other corner is a clay to cushion the impact and when 2 clay hitting against each other maybe they should add both clay compressed rate against the first test. It might be double. They should take a solid wall or object to swing at 50mph with the other end with the clay, This might get a more compressed clay instead. Perhaps the first test should be swinging a clay down at 50mph against another clay to measure both compression so it will be more accurately see the result. Hitting a solid wall without any cushion will have a greater impact.
I think the relative motion idea is correct, it's 2x the speed, but there is 2x more stuff to compact. Maybe if you changes one of the cars for a solid uncompressible block then you would get the same destruction as the 2x velocity one?
It whould be only slightly diffrent with uncompresable car. Imagine a netwons pendulum. If you drop a ball from one side it stops imedietly after hitting second ball, so it goes from Vm/s speed to 0m/s. if you drop balls from both sides, both of them bounces back so the force goes from Vm/s to -Vm/s so the change of speed is equal to 2Vm/s. Two cars hitting head-on with speed Vm/s is not equal to one car hitting a wall (or a second car next to the wall) at 2Vm/s speed, but to car at speed 2Vm/s hitting second car that is not moving(0m/s). In first example both cars go from Vm/s to -Vm/s, and in the second example first car goes from 2Vm/s to 0Vm/s, and second car goes from 0m/s to -2Vm/s.
"Knock your socks off": Socks, from the Latin soccus, a small shoe. I wonder if it's originally meant more like you're kicking off your shoes in preparation for a fight. Or you're so scared that you're scrambling backwards to get away, so much so that you accidentally kick off your shoes.
I don't think the latins would have phrases about "knocking something off" .. I'd rather like to believe that this phrase comes from early disney clips and such where they literally knocked them out of the socks/shoes, it's basically a staple in "toon-world"
"knock your socks off" is impossible. Now, anyone familiar with war and car accidents? Knocking your shoes off is a distinct possibility. Finding a dead body and a shoe 5 meters away is common.
you had two deformation-zones. use one car and one truck hitting each other, jamie's assumption is right. ps: under the condition that both would have unchanged mass, but one car had no deformation-zone (the truck), all would go into the other one, being 2x (for impuls or 4x for energy=0.5 mv^2) of that, what a collision with an unmovable object would have resulted in --> jamie was right
I think as they tried the "clay" - experiment they expectet the Force of 2x is actually 2 times the Force of 1x wich i think is wrong becouse of the splittetforces in two directions (radial Movement not Linear) so the experiment doesent ad up
This episode of MythBusters made no sense. When you have two cars you have double the material to crumple. And the formula for Kinetic Energy is Ek=½ mv^2 So, I believe the fans had it wrong and Jamie was in fact right in the first place after all. Increased v, velocity is squred, so you will increase the kinetic energy squared as velocity is increased. And two objects hitting each other are hitting each other head on, are hitting each other at the COMBINED SPEED.
The energy in a system is the energy in a system. If the energy is 50 units with one, then the energy is 100 units with two vehicles both adding 50 units to the impact. The issue here is the frame of reference.
What always bothered me about their initial "knock your socks off" test was how they never fixed the angle of the feet. It was always too steep because of the stiffness of the dummy, like, almost 90° instead of slightly angled aka. curled, as an actual human's foot would be when knocked back.
@@squaidinkarts Well, that's the whole point. "Superhuman strength" might not even be necessary when the variables are changed to account for something like this. I believe that, in fact, a curled foot would make it SIGNIFICANTLY easier to make a sock slide off. I have this happen regularly when wearing wool socks, no punching required, just regular walking.
With the car's it's all about energy .. when the car hits the wall with 50, the wall absorbs none of the energy, but the car absorbs all of it (due to deforming). Now 2 cars hitting each other with 50 - that's a speed differential of 100 - but the energy is absorbed by BOTH cars, so each of the cars absorbs half of the energy involved. Make the same test with a car moving at 50 and a WALL moving at 50 and the car would suffer the deformation of the 100 crash So 2 cars head on with 50 may share the energy due to both deforming, but lose things inside the car will have a relative velocity of 100 km/h to the other car - which can be very troublesome
the theoretical forse of 100mph, is the complet force in this crash... but it is also divided between the two... so both experience their own speed of 50mph
Jaime is remembering a basic physics problem where there is an ELASTIC collision and a 'tennis ball' bounces back. If a car hits a wall and stops? It is virtually perfectly INELASTIC. It is just 50, not 100. KE is lost.
42:05 Though in the original they said it had to be survivable. It's pretty sure getting hit full force by a full size truck at 65 mph especially over such a small surface area is not survivable. I think they should also have tested the weight of the socks. Cause what makes it work is that the weight and enertia of the sock is greater than the friction of the foot.
Just so you know Jamie had a brain fart when he said that so he is not right or wrong he just made a tiny mistake when he tried explain the physics. He forgot that those two trucks share the force is the middle car that took 100 mph which might be the reason why he got confused. Simple way to explain on how force works here is using jug of water as analogy. You have one jug you try give it to wall it doesn't take it you still have that jug, same with two jugs. You and another guy has jug you and him switched jugs both of you still have one jug. Now there is third guy in middle on you and another guy, both of you give middle guy jug at the same time, now he has two and he gives those jugs back. So this is basically how physicks worked here in a nutshell. As for the sock knocking off part yeah it can happen, usually when shoes comes first they sometimes has enought friction to take socks off.
The 1st Knock ur socks off already answered the 1st time. The revisit reconfirms it, as Who the hell went boxing with granma socks, and only Superman can knock ur socks. And guess what? superman is fictional, the same goes for the myth
Im sorry, wasnt speed 1x supposed to be at 60 degrees if speed 2x is at 90? 60 degrees is where it is at half the height so it has half the potential energy which will transform into kinetic energy .Please correct me if im wrong, and provide an explination.
Should they not have crashed one car into a stationary car at 50mph, then one car into a stationary car at 100mph, then two cars head on into each other both travelling at 50mph? As others have said, the forces are distributed in the way the cars crumple.
There is a clear flaw in this method of testing the crash, a car can absorb impact, a steel wall can not, you have to compare a car hitting a stationary car head on at 50 with 2 cars hitting each other at 50, otherwise it's meaningless.
So Before I'm watch the rest of the Vid... two Identical car hitting each other at 50 MPH each, is the same as one of them doing 100mph and the other one stationary, but the stationary car is not a solid wall. It will absorb some of the impact... exactly 1/2 of it to be precise! The socks... unfortunately there are vids on youtube of motorcycle crashes... and there is always one of Helmets that are not done up coming off, as well as one where shoes come off (proper motorcycle boots however are more secure than the average shoe, and a sock is no more secure than a shoe... well maybe a little, it depends how tight each one fits! I've personally lost socks while running in them without shoes, so it can happen!
Car Crash is all about energy... With 2x speed you will have 4x energy in the system. Even if you have two cars... 2x speed car has 2 times more energy that 2 cars with x speed.
There would be quite an easier way to knock the socks of, or at least pull them off to be correct. Just jump into water having socks still on doing a headlong jump might does the trick.
😂 I can't believe people actually thought a Wet sock may come off easier. If you're one of those people jump in the shower tonight fully clothed and then take all your clothes off 😂😂
I think this is the one myth that bothers me the most , Jamie said two cars at 50 are the same as one car with 100 against a wall not against another car , they should have accelerated one car and one steel plate to 50 mph , bcause the car takes the energy into the crunch zone and the steel plate or wall as jamie said dont
They are dealing with coefficient of friction and conservation of momentum. Wish they would flash equations on the screen just for a couple seconds. Kids with math knowledge might get excited.
Here‘s the thing. There is the rather important factor of which body hits which body at what speed. 2 identical cars, sure. A truck and a smart? Veeery different depending on who hits what 😅 in an extreme example: imagine how the yellow car would look if that house somehow hit it at 100mph. Know what i mean? Impulse and kinetic energy.
On thing I would've loved to see is that if one of the cars traveled 50mph and the other 100mph how would that affected the outcome. If it would've dealt damage to each car on their speed or would it been a 100mph collision on both.
@@oniminus Hiya, it's me again. I would like to correct a previous mistake I made. If one car was travelling at 100mph, and the other was travelling at 50mph, the effect would be both would feel like they collided with the wall at 75mph. This is due to the assumption of inelastic collision. After collision, both cars would combine, and each car would travel in the direction of the "100mph car" at 25mph. The difference in speed between the 2 cars is 50mph. And when the faster car hits the slower car, it would force the slower car back, towards the same direction of the faster car, but the speed difference of 50mph would be shared between the 2 cars, so both cars would travel the same direction at 25mph. So the changes in speed would be 100mph to 25mph. And 50mph to -25mph. For both vehicles the change in speed would be 75mph. So it would equate to hitting the wall at 75mph for both vehicles.
How to make fans happy: 1. Admit errors publicly instead of hiding them or sugar coating them. 2. Make a whole episode even though you have already checked it in small scale. It is so clear how unnecessary that 4 car smashing was and yet so nice that they did it. Best of the best.
This was a TV show dummy
This time it feels as though the narrator is behind my left ear. Never change Mythbusters channel, it's now just a part of your identity.
❤😂
i do wonder how they keep doing this, though. surely the audio was fine when these episodes originally aired on TV
at this point I am sure that messing with the audio was part of the agreement of being allowed to release it on TH-cam
@@kuhluhOGThat could have something to do with it... I've noticed that Binajay Science has bought some licences for a lot of the episodes, but I'd be surprised if that was a condition. I'd dare say they were able to get the rights cheap due to their educational media status and the fact that the production company is Australian (which means the government gives out incentives to make them as accessible as possible).
There could be some technical reasons, like if you go and check out a lot of the old Top Gear uploads the sound mixing is way out and for whatever reason the BBC hasn't bothered to go back remaster them to work properly with TH-cam's software. Perhaps it's just not economical to bother when they're getting the views anyway.
I'm gonna admit I am way out of my wheelhouse here, but I have someone who works for me that will definitely know the answer. I will make a note to remember to ask him next time we're in the same place at the same time.
@@kuhluhOG That or they put the "intern", as in the 15yo son of Lisa from accounting, to put together episodes from original masters for YT.
Love getting to see Grant build stuff again.
Mythbusters letting him live on is the best.
RIP Grant
i agree RIP Grant
I didn't know he'd passed away until recently. Very sad... he was a great part of the team.
❤
Seeing Buster finally getting his socks blown off made my week! Him standing there with his leather legs, woolen socks, laser controlled release system getting hit by 10000x the force of a human punch and then the happiness of the crew "Did his socks come off before his feet did?" xD
The question would be, if that applied force would actually cut a human in half before knocking socks off. Not everybody wears a steel plate, most people dont..
What I think happens is that the "crunch zone" of a car is X units, whereas the crunch zone of a wall is usually 0 units. So from the point of the car, each dissipates their own energy against the other car. Kind of a newton's cradle. But from the original myth, the center car was the one in the middle between the trucks. And that gets hit with the same energy from both sides, so that should add up...
Crashing 2 Cars moving relative to the ground, one at 50m/s and the other one at -50m/s Is equivalent of diving a car moving at 100m/s relative to the ground and hitting another car moving at 0m/s relative to the ground. The compression in the small scale was not the same because both car compress so the kinetic energy Is dissipated in 2 Cars, when 1 car hits the Wall instead the deformation of the Wall Is transcurable and almost all the Energy Is dissipated in the compression of the clay.
The little narrator gnome that lives in my headphones is now in the left earcup? Thanks MythBreakers!
Thank you so much for uploading the show!!! THANK YOU!! I miss the cast and this show so much.
I have worked as a bouncer and I have definitely seen socks come off I think it is more to do with pivoting and friction in a shoe or more accurately a boot. When I have seen this occur the person is wearing an minimally laced boot with a fairly open top. I don't think it's the actual force of the punch but the ensuing struggle to stay upright that steals the sock
Yeah so it's not the sock being knocked off it's a loose shoe yanking the sock off when it comes flying off, I have seen this as well.
There's another factor that was not considered in this retest, but then again, said factor wouldn't apply to a punch with a human strength either, I believe.
Under significant G, the human body acts more like a liquid and deforms. This is what makes motorcyclists get flewn off of their shoes (and socks) when they crash. Their feet simply become smaller and more maleable, thus slide out easier. The skin on Buster may have been...well...skin...but its inside didn't deform from the hit like a human leg would.
I saw video showing kid being hit by a car going only around 15-20mph and the force of impact send his adidas like shoes flying, so there is def. somethink about having shoes on.
Liar.
Isn’t in the clay test in the first test it had to deform one and in the second it had to deform two clay cylinder? So the energy is split into two deformation.
Yes! so half.
Exactly this. Also you get two times X in between the trucks they where testing with.
Which is the time Jamie did his statement while a car was smashed in between two trucks, in which case the car is hit with 2 times X, while each truck get's 1 time X.
Yes. And it is the same thing with those cars. The energy of two cars going against each other is double the energy of one car, but it's divided between them. Each car has it's own deformation zone and IF they have a similar weight and build, it's evenly distributed.
I think if you had a static 3rd piece of clay between the contact point of the hammers, at 1 X the clay at the middle would receive most of the damage and the two cars"hammers" clay would be half of the standard 1 X test. Not sure if I'm correct but I think that's how it would work
@@mikenz6829 I'm sure that clay betwen two hammers whould have very similar deformation to that with one hammer and a wall. According to the netwon's third law, wall whould push the clay the same way that hammer does. The only diffrence is the inertia of the clay itself, so to be 100% true the clay should be weightless.
Strange how they never pointed out the flaw in Jamies original statement, or tested that version of it: two identical cars hitting each other at 50 mph should be identical to one hitting a stationary one at 100 mph
I mean it is a similar myth to “if you shoot a ball going 50mph behind you while going 50mph it will come out at 0mph” which they did test and could simply take the outcome of that and they outcome of this to get a pretty good assumption on what would happen
Another awesome video. You can't go wrong with watching Mythbusters right before going to work. Can you please upload the episode that has my two favourite myths they've ever tested that being Waterslide Wipeout and Right Turns Only.
This left-ear-narrator-trend seems such a deliberate act. It's almost lovely to have the narrator so close to one half of my my head.
Ha I had to turn my phone landscape to understand what you ment. 😅
great unless you're like me and are mostly deaf in your left ear :/
@@BrookeK92you could switch your headphones. As in, wear the right phone in the left ear and the left phone in the right ear.
I've even seen motorcycle shoes/boots being knocked off when crashed, and indeed it was a big deadly crash but the boots and socks were knocked off.
Back in the day watching mythbusters I never would understand why.
Watching this back brings me back with the knowledge of now.
Thank you ❤
The original question Jamie was commenting on involved a stationary object (a small car) being hit at both ends at the same time by two vehicles travelling at 50 mph. Which you would have to test by placing a small car up against the steel crash wall and slamming into it at 100 mph and comparing those results to the original experiment.
And is "One way or another, it's all just shrapnel" available on a t-shirt? I'm picturing the quote in maybe four lines, with a graphic moustache draped over the top line.
Was going to say the same. They crashed a car from two sides with two tracks. It wasn't just two tracks crashing into each other. So they tested different situation. Even though I like that they did it like this.
I mean it is often said that two cars crashing into each other is equal to one crashing into a wall at combined speed. Was nice to see them testing this and getting the result which seems counterintuitive until you really think it through.
In that case Jamie would have been closer to being right... but still not quite because we're not dealing with perfect objects.
If you took a measurement of the impact on a theoretical zero-mass object being hit by the two cars of the same mass at 50mph and compared that to the force of an object between a "perfectly solid" wall and a car going at 100mph then you would get the same measurement (as the kinetic energy all transfers perfectly from this zero mass object into the objects that absorb said kinetic energy).
If the object in the middle is absorbing that kinetic energy then all objects absorbing the kinetic energy need to be taken into account.
Incomplete diagrams are the source of most misunderstandings when it comes to physics.
Still wrong. if you have two trucks hitting a car in the middle you have 3 objects crumbling and absorbing energy. If you hit a car against a wall you only have two.
@@detorrV2 You have three: the truck, the car, and the wall. Each of these objects "absorbs" and reacts ("pushes back" in an equal-and-opposite Newtonian sense) in different proportions, with the wall mostly reacting and the car doing a lot of absorbing, but they're all involved in both directions.
It is a shame that they didn't take the opportunity to use the track to retest "Compact compact".
I had my shoes knocked twice; once in a free climbing accident and once in a high speed motorbike accident, those 2 incidents proved it for me
Knocked off. yep
That's very possible. Force needed to take your's shoes off is mass * acceleration, so with boots that weight 10x the socks, you need 10x less acceleration.
If the Buster had been wearing shoes, their inertia would have helped pull the socks off.
i think the biggest issue with "knocking the socks off" is that they are missing the human element. if you get punched, you might just flail your leg and thus "throw" the sock off. and yes, that works, as you can just do that with very lose wool socks.
And now the episodes of Archimedes 😊
Who has ever been in a situation where your socks got knocked off or almost off and wasn't wearing shoes? Test fails on the basic premise of the myth, socks implies shoes.
"Socks implies shoes"
I'm sorry what?! Defend your position, sir!
Do you think socks are existentially dependent on shoes? Are you one of those freaks who wear shoes indoors and into bed?
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen such a solid wall as the one in the crash test
Do you live in America?
Come to Europe and look at the houses there. I admit that if you'd drive a car with 160km/h against a regular German one-family-house, it's gonna make a hole in the wall, but I'm not sure you'd break through any load bearing walls. Whereas in the US, the regular house ... well - the car is probably going right through.
@@Desasteroid im from Europe, I love in a cement box. That car would still run straight through at that speed
When I was 8 I got hit by a car, I picked up my shoe AND sock and limped home with the driver following me (stranger danger I was told not to get into strange cars).
Only one shoe and sock came off but off they came.
Wow this goes to show the education level of the population
I have a big problem with them talking about the energy exerted on, in this case, Buster... it's not just the energy, but (also) the speed, that matters (in this case).
Imagine a huuuuuge ball of steal weighing, say, 500 million tons hitting a skyscraper at 1 mph... it would exert an ENORMOUS amount of energy and very like bring the whole building down. If it hit Buster though, it would only gently push him slowly forward.... and _definitely_ not knock his socks off !!
Kinetic energy is K.E. = ½ * mass (kg) * v (m/s) squared, so that's = 0.5 * 500.000.000 * (0,44704 * 0,44704) = 50 million joules = 50.000.000 newton meters... but Buster could still just stand there, have a sip of beer and even hold on to it getting hit by that ball.
They’re using the wrong socks. They ought to use Teflon socks.
no they should have used lead socks
Thanks to the power of cameras everywhere I have now seen video proof of people literally getting their socks knocked off, some lets just say violently to their determent, and others where they do walk away from it! It's possible in some of those cases their socks got 'pinched' in their shoes to help with this. Most of these cases weren't punches, though. I only remember seeing a single instance where it was a punch but the person tripping over backwards seemed to have more to do with it
Oh man, watching Tori's leg waxing in slow motion was brutal!
My left ear really enjoyed this video!
Basic relativity: At rest, the relative velocity of car A to car B is zero. If car A travels towards car B at 50mph, its relative velocity is 50mph. If car B then travels towards car A at 50mph, the relative velocity of car A is 100mph, the sum of velocities of both cars. Conversely, if car B moves at 50mph away from car A, the relative velocity is again zero.
However, this is just a measure of energy, which is then distributed through the system (ie both cars) in the form of big crunch.
One of the best episodes!
well.....if 2 cars hit each other you will have double the damage, because there are 2 cars, total destruction then is the same as 1 twice the speed (total destruction in the area, not on each car).
People think "but wont there be twice the energy/destruction?". Yes, there is twice the desctruction, both cars are damaged equaly.
i actually think it would be easier to knock the socks off if they wore shoes. more mass tying the socks down so less energy needed to pull the feet out of the socks.
Two cars colliding at a combined speed of 100 mph do produce twice the amount of damage, but there is also twice as much matter to absorb that energy, so each car will experience the same amount of damage as if it were colliding with a rigid wall. But things change if the masses and/or stiffnesses of the cars are not equal.
That slow motion waxing was AWESOME!!!
I remember after this aired, expanding a bit on the swing impact rig trials in physics class (iiish dating myself hard there). The physics we got but we wanted to test what actually happened at the point of impact between the bodies. Like what would be the "impact force" there - would that be the same? - But our results had poor repeatability and no good data. We tried attaching different types of load cells and shock sensors to the leading surface of one of the swinging masses (and compensating for its weight on the other), but we couldn't access or afford types actually made for it so they either gave very variable data or broke on impact before giving a rational reading.
Anyone saying sweaty socks might come off easier have never walked more than 1000 steps in a day.
Whoever suggested that sweat would lubricate your socks obviously never pulled a real sweat in their life 😑
Ex military here and i so agree there even more then on ruck march or deployment exercise we were 2 pair
if you think about it, one 3000 lbs car hitting another stationary 3000lbs car would move the car backwards. A wall wouldn't move. So the stationary car moving with equal speed would kind of simulate the wall not moving.
interestingly, they say if you are on a two lane road and you cannot get out of the way of a car on the wrong side of the road (one is trying to pass) they say stop your vehicle... because you are not bringing any momentum to the equation, your car will likely experience far less damage (though it will still likely be a write-off) but since you experience less acceleration, injuries will also be minimal compared to the moving car.
When one car stands and other crashes into it deformation is going to spread on both cars, making damage on each car less. If both cars move then there's more deformation as there's more energy in the impact. Now, one other reason might be that if you stop your car it will get bumped backwards. Some part of the impact energy will get transferred to backward movement (no inertia that would push car forward effectively squashing it).
@@d4slaimless yes but the amount faced by the occupents, going from 0 to 10mph very quickly will be a sharp decline compared to the oncoming car of say 40mph to 0.
@@adam346 nope, if both cars weigh the same then they will both experience the same G forces. The moving car will go from 40mph to 20, and the stopped car will go from 0 to 20 backwards.
That being said, on most roads the best thing you can do is slow down as much as you can before driving right off the road into the ditch and avoid big trees
@@thecrazyfarmboy stand on the brakes then... if you get pushed backwards you are liable to hit something else.
@@adam346 standing on the brake to brace for impact would cause more damage to your car because the force would translate into crushing your car (and the other car, only slightly) instead of moving it backwards. Of course your car will still move backwards unless your car is very large and heavy comparatively, so the difference in damage won't be very significant. Still it would be interesting to test this out.
technically speaking I'd argue that Jamie was still somewhat right in the "overal scale". cause the 2 50MPH cars, did result in 2 cars looking like they had a 50MPH crash. so the overall damage and force was around double. But since this force was spread over 2 cars rather than 1, the damage per car was NOT equal to the damage of 1 car hitting a wall at 100MPH and as such not a good equivalent.
interesting how it's only like...half false :p
I think one of life little (and I mean really little) is when your sock comes straight of without going inside out... I want that sock remover machine mounted in my house haha
A couple of the things I learned from this show are: some things I have known to be true are not; therefore, it is highly likely there are many other falsities in many other subjects in my knowledge banks, and because of this I need to be able to accept being wrong no matter how strong I feel about it if I want to do better in life. Another is some things I have heard are insignificant and unimportant as information. Crashing cars has importance, socks coming off is of no importance.
I saw Day of the Dead. Teaching zombies tricks didn't knock Rhodes socks off!🧟🧦
Looks like the ankle kept the sock on, if they had had Buster "looking" the other way to begin with it might've just slipped off on the earlier test.
It wouldn't have fit exactly with the myth at that point, but how they did it doesn't really either.
Probably the only case where you really could knock someone's socks off is if they snagged on something
HELLO MythBuster !!! Can redo this experiment ? I am not convinced. Jamie may not be wrong with his theory about 2 car colliding with each at 50mph with 100mph impact. When they do a single swing test, it's the Clay hitting onto a solid war, lets say it compress 1.5inch. When they made both clay to swing at 50mph each to collide against each other, now the other corner is a clay to cushion the impact and when 2 clay hitting against each other maybe they should add both clay compressed rate against the first test. It might be double. They should take a solid wall or object to swing at 50mph with the other end with the clay, This might get a more compressed clay instead. Perhaps the first test should be swinging a clay down at 50mph against another clay to measure both compression so it will be more accurately see the result. Hitting a solid wall without any cushion will have a greater impact.
I think the relative motion idea is correct, it's 2x the speed, but there is 2x more stuff to compact. Maybe if you changes one of the cars for a solid uncompressible block then you would get the same destruction as the 2x velocity one?
It whould be only slightly diffrent with uncompresable car. Imagine a netwons pendulum. If you drop a ball from one side it stops imedietly after hitting second ball, so it goes from Vm/s speed to 0m/s. if you drop balls from both sides, both of them bounces back so the force goes from Vm/s to -Vm/s so the change of speed is equal to 2Vm/s. Two cars hitting head-on with speed Vm/s is not equal to one car hitting a wall (or a second car next to the wall) at 2Vm/s speed, but to car at speed 2Vm/s hitting second car that is not moving(0m/s). In first example both cars go from Vm/s to -Vm/s, and in the second example first car goes from 2Vm/s to 0Vm/s, and second car goes from 0m/s to -2Vm/s.
"Knock your socks off": Socks, from the Latin soccus, a small shoe. I wonder if it's originally meant more like you're kicking off your shoes in preparation for a fight. Or you're so scared that you're scrambling backwards to get away, so much so that you accidentally kick off your shoes.
I don't think the latins would have phrases about "knocking something off" .. I'd rather like to believe that this phrase comes from early disney clips and such where they literally knocked them out of the socks/shoes, it's basically a staple in "toon-world"
16:28 Poor Jamie smashing down the humble pie, he took it like a champ though
"knock your socks off" is impossible. Now, anyone familiar with war and car accidents? Knocking your shoes off is a distinct possibility. Finding a dead body and a shoe 5 meters away is common.
you had two deformation-zones. use one car and one truck hitting each other, jamie's assumption is right.
ps: under the condition that both would have unchanged mass, but one car had no deformation-zone (the truck), all would go into the other one, being 2x (for impuls or 4x for energy=0.5 mv^2) of that, what a collision with an unmovable object would have resulted in --> jamie was right
10:18 Argh, that scream was full of agony. XD
A myth here is that if you know you're gonna crash : you need to give gas and hit the other car harder.
The one giving the bigger punch will win.
I think as they tried the "clay" - experiment they expectet the Force of 2x is actually 2 times the Force of 1x wich i think is wrong becouse of the splittetforces in two directions (radial Movement not Linear) so the experiment doesent ad up
This episode of MythBusters made no sense. When you have two cars you have double the material to crumple. And the formula for Kinetic Energy is Ek=½ mv^2
So, I believe the fans had it wrong and Jamie was in fact right in the first place after all. Increased v, velocity is squred, so you will increase the kinetic energy squared as velocity is increased. And two objects hitting each other are hitting each other head on, are hitting each other at the COMBINED SPEED.
The energy in a system is the energy in a system. If the energy is 50 units with one, then the energy is 100 units with two vehicles both adding 50 units to the impact. The issue here is the frame of reference.
What always bothered me about their initial "knock your socks off" test was how they never fixed the angle of the feet. It was always too steep because of the stiffness of the dummy, like, almost 90° instead of slightly angled aka. curled, as an actual human's foot would be when knocked back.
All those small variables kinda disappear when you hit the dummy 100 times as hard
@@squaidinkarts Well, that's the whole point. "Superhuman strength" might not even be necessary when the variables are changed to account for something like this. I believe that, in fact, a curled foot would make it SIGNIFICANTLY easier to make a sock slide off. I have this happen regularly when wearing wool socks, no punching required, just regular walking.
They still had to test the collision of a wall and a car moving towards each other at a speed of 50 miles per hour.
technically, 2 cars going at 50 would indeed have the same power as 1 car at 100, but as they say, twice the mass cancels it out
With the car's it's all about energy .. when the car hits the wall with 50, the wall absorbs none of the energy, but the car absorbs all of it (due to deforming). Now 2 cars hitting each other with 50 - that's a speed differential of 100 - but the energy is absorbed by BOTH cars, so each of the cars absorbs half of the energy involved.
Make the same test with a car moving at 50 and a WALL moving at 50 and the car would suffer the deformation of the 100 crash
So 2 cars head on with 50 may share the energy due to both deforming, but lose things inside the car will have a relative velocity of 100 km/h to the other car - which can be very troublesome
the theoretical forse of 100mph, is the complet force in this crash... but it is also divided between the two... so both experience their own speed of 50mph
Great video!
As someone deaf on one side, this was a bit of a lackluster experience.
Try setting your audio config to mono
confirmed mike tyson cannot punch that hard
when you smack 2 cars together at 50mph each, they both have crumple zones. that's not accounted for when comparing it to a solid wall
Jaime is remembering a basic physics problem where there is an ELASTIC collision and a 'tennis ball' bounces back.
If a car hits a wall and stops? It is virtually perfectly INELASTIC. It is just 50, not 100. KE is lost.
Tory went full wookie while waxing😂
It is a shame that they didn't take the opportunity to use the track to retest "Compact compact".
42:05
Though in the original they said it had to be survivable. It's pretty sure getting hit full force by a full size truck at 65 mph especially over such a small surface area is not survivable. I think they should also have tested the weight of the socks. Cause what makes it work is that the weight and enertia of the sock is greater than the friction of the foot.
It's the busters of the myths. :3
And I truly miss those busters!
Just so you know Jamie had a brain fart when he said that so he is not right or wrong he just made a tiny mistake when he tried explain the physics.
He forgot that those two trucks share the force is the middle car that took 100 mph which might be the reason why he got confused.
Simple way to explain on how force works here is using jug of water as analogy.
You have one jug you try give it to wall it doesn't take it you still have that jug, same with two jugs.
You and another guy has jug you and him switched jugs both of you still have one jug.
Now there is third guy in middle on you and another guy, both of you give middle guy jug at the same time, now he has two and he gives those jugs back.
So this is basically how physicks worked here in a nutshell.
As for the sock knocking off part yeah it can happen, usually when shoes comes first they sometimes has enought friction to take socks off.
The 1st Knock ur socks off already answered the 1st time. The revisit reconfirms it, as Who the hell went boxing with granma socks, and only Superman can knock ur socks. And guess what? superman is fictional, the same goes for the myth
Im sorry, wasnt speed 1x supposed to be at 60 degrees if speed 2x is at 90? 60 degrees is where it is at half the height so it has half the potential energy which will transform into kinetic energy .Please correct me if im wrong, and provide an explination.
Should they not have crashed one car into a stationary car at 50mph, then one car into a stationary car at 100mph, then two cars head on into each other both travelling at 50mph? As others have said, the forces are distributed in the way the cars crumple.
So, what would be the results if Buster's ankle joints were articulated? You know, like a human's ankles.
You forgot one very important piece of information
The two cars in frontal collision add double the crunch zone
Kinda makes me curious what will the result be if one of the cars are traveling at 100.mph while the other remains at 50.mph.
There is a clear flaw in this method of testing the crash, a car can absorb impact, a steel wall can not, you have to compare a car hitting a stationary car head on at 50 with 2 cars hitting each other at 50, otherwise it's meaningless.
So Before I'm watch the rest of the Vid... two Identical car hitting each other at 50 MPH each, is the same as one of them doing 100mph and the other one stationary, but the stationary car is not a solid wall. It will absorb some of the impact... exactly 1/2 of it to be precise!
The socks... unfortunately there are vids on youtube of motorcycle crashes... and there is always one of Helmets that are not done up coming off, as well as one where shoes come off (proper motorcycle boots however are more secure than the average shoe, and a sock is no more secure than a shoe... well maybe a little, it depends how tight each one fits!
I've personally lost socks while running in them without shoes, so it can happen!
17:14 im pretty sure that is used for side collisions like t-boning
23:12 The "two left feet" on Buster look more like two right feet!
@10:15 i absolutely can understand Tori, i tryed that once and got back to shaving
I actually watched a girl in her twenties get hit at 65 km/h by a pick up truck and it knocked her shoes and her ankle socks off.
R.I.P. Nubiras.
Car Crash is all about energy... With 2x speed you will have 4x energy in the system. Even if you have two cars... 2x speed car has 2 times more energy that 2 cars with x speed.
Energy is not momentum.
Momentum is not that important in this case because it is not elastic collision.
Love these; Mythbusters episodes!!!!!
There would be quite an easier way to knock the socks of, or at least pull them off to be correct. Just jump into water having socks still on doing a headlong jump might does the trick.
😂 I can't believe people actually thought a Wet sock may come off easier.
If you're one of those people jump in the shower tonight fully clothed and then take all your clothes off 😂😂
The narrator sounds like hes in my backyard in the corner behind the shed
I think this is the one myth that bothers me the most , Jamie said two cars at 50 are the same as one car with 100 against a wall not against another car , they should have accelerated one car and one steel plate to 50 mph , bcause the car takes the energy into the crunch zone and the steel plate or wall as jamie said dont
It looks like a car crash - James Hyneman
The narrator is standing an inch from my ear gently whispering to me
They are dealing with coefficient of friction and conservation of momentum. Wish they would flash equations on the screen just for a couple seconds. Kids with math knowledge might get excited.
I think a pair of shoes wld have drastically changed these sock results
Here‘s the thing. There is the rather important factor of which body hits which body at what speed. 2 identical cars, sure. A truck and a smart? Veeery different depending on who hits what 😅 in an extreme example: imagine how the yellow car would look if that house somehow hit it at 100mph. Know what i mean? Impulse and kinetic energy.
Ke=0.5 mv^2 so both at speed x is mv^2. One at twice speed is 2mv^2
Tendiere zu der Nr 2. Konturen etc kommen geil zur Geltung.
Das Light blue ist zwar echt geil aber irgendwie passt es nicht zu der Karosserieform
Technically buster had two right feet not two left feet but I know it’s just an expression that means someone’s clumsy
On thing I would've loved to see is that if one of the cars traveled 50mph and the other 100mph how would that affected the outcome. If it would've dealt damage to each car on their speed or would it been a 100mph collision on both.
@@Cptjonmiller Why would the effects be changed in this case when in the tests they only experienced the effects of their own speed?
@@oniminus Hiya, it's me again. I would like to correct a previous mistake I made. If one car was travelling at 100mph, and the other was travelling at 50mph, the effect would be both would feel like they collided with the wall at 75mph.
This is due to the assumption of inelastic collision. After collision, both cars would combine, and each car would travel in the direction of the "100mph car" at 25mph.
The difference in speed between the 2 cars is 50mph. And when the faster car hits the slower car, it would force the slower car back, towards the same direction of the faster car, but the speed difference of 50mph would be shared between the 2 cars, so both cars would travel the same direction at 25mph.
So the changes in speed would be 100mph to 25mph. And 50mph to -25mph. For both vehicles the change in speed would be 75mph. So it would equate to hitting the wall at 75mph for both vehicles.
So what would be the case if one car goes 50mph and the other 100mph?
I noticed that in several of these episodes, Tory's voice is very raspy. Any idea why? Illness or injury maybe?