DO YOU HAVE SOME MYTHS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE MYTHBUSTERS TO TEST

When shot upwards, a gun doesn't kick up - it kicks down. Newton's Third Law of Motion.

Sorry to bump, but I said upright

No, Upright like holding the pistol in a normal fashion.

In reality, yes, but with the pivot of your shoulder it kicks upward.

Have you ever shot a gun?

Well, that's why. If you haven't shot a gun, you won't know that it kicks up because it pivots on your shoulder.

That isn't kicking up words its transfer of motion... guns kick straight back and if you use a semi auto pistol it will seem like it kicks up because of the offset force of the slide or the firing mechanism. If you suspend a gun in midair and fired it it would kick straight back.

(I know this is a late reply) I'm gonna lay the events out step by step.
Step 1: Gun has been fired. (Assuming it was a pistol)
Step 2: Newton's law says the gun will go backwards as the bullet flies out.
Step 3: Wrist acts as a pivot that makes the pistol "kick up".
In the case of the M16 the stock is designed so there is no viable pivot to make the gun pivot. 

To answer Skate6556's question it is more likely that the gun will kick sideways. Take note that I only said "more likely" due to the fact that I haven't shot a gun myself. 

they've done this already it was an epic fail

all they did was get 1 parabola and use that only parabola (except in the other revisit they used a lot of parabolas, but they didn't get the focal point right in the first place)

This myth was tested in the 2nd season in 2004 and then revisited in the 4th season in 2006.  They found that while it did produce a lot of heat and had potential it was too difficult to target a ship on the water.

I already watched those episodes. This one has the advantage of having multiple collectors so there would be more heat on 1 spot. It also has an added advantage that the last mirror could be pivoted to actually aim at the enemy ships. The only complications are aligning the mirrors and making sure the last mirror doesn't melt. Also, some guy might just step into the line of fire and may 1. Get instant sunburn or 2. Clothes catch on fire. 3. Suffer 2nd or 3rd degree burns (depending on quantity/quality/surface area etc. of the mirrors). I'll be sure to get a better visual aid so you people can better understand. 

The final lens would have to convex and the men would have to stand in very specific spots which is pretty doable.  This mirror would also get very hot as you said so it might be a good idea to cool it somehow.  Other than that, the idea is possible.  You should check out this instructable if you haven't already.  Same basic idea with a modern take:
Fresnal Death Ray

 lol, so why wouldn't the mythbusters use a Fresnel lens! and cooling the last mirror makes no sense to me because then you'll lose all the heat needed to set fire to the enemy ship. maybe I'll just find some weird heat-resistant mirror technology for the last mirror, or just regulate the heat coming out of the parabolas/lenses by covering up some parts of the collector to block some light so less heat... you get it

The mythbusters wouldn't have used this because they wanted a more plausible build.  This tech simply didn't exist during the era of the myth.  It is a cool demo of solar energy though.  Just FYI, you shouldn't need to cool the main mirror unless you are going to have 100's of secondary mirrors.  In that case, the most efficient mirror system is only 80% efficient at reflecting light(reference) so you should expect the main mirror to reach 25% the temperature of the target(likely not accurate as it just assumes all light converts to heat but good enough for quick and dirty theory).  This means if you want to burn wood(ignition temps) you would want the point of light to reach about 430 degrees celcius to cause ignition in most woods in 20 to 30 seconds.  In that time the mirror would quickly reach about 100 celcius and then get warmer over time.  All numbers are guesses but it sounds do-able as an efficient metal mirror(not glass) should be able to cope with these temperatures.  I would stick with the fresnel lens though as a lens is much more efficient at focusing light and shouldn't heat up hardly at all.  If you want to up the amount of energy focused without getting a bigger lens then you could use mirrors and the fresnel but I think you would melt the lens pretty quickly.

 Now, the ship is plastered in pitch so that should light fairly quick. The sails should also be easy to light so there is some hope for this build to work. Now, to get an e-mail the Mythbusters... somehow...

You have a point about the pitch.  According to a MSDS I found on Coal-Tar Pitch(found here) the flash point of pitch is ~200 celcius.  I can't find the flash point of canvas though.  That should make it easier.  The problem is it will likely be wet or full of salt.

 Unless some drunk guy went up to the sails and smeared pitch all over it! But then what Roman would bring wine up during an invasion? Still all the salt would cause some problems, or will it? The beam might melt the salt and molten salt will drip all over the Romans. Once again, history is written by the victors so maybe the Romans took care of Archimedes' stuff.  

Let me know if you manage to melt salt with this thing.  That would be pretty impressive since it has a really high melting point.  Besides, if you started to melt the salt then the entire ship would go up in like 3 seconds.

I think we have digressed pretty far from the original point of this thread though.  lol.

 I guess this calls for a forum

Discussion has been redirected to this forum.

PM me if and when you start one.  Sounds like it could be a good discussion.  I say keep it general, like "how do you use the sun to sink a ship?"  Should get some people in there.

 A wardenclyffe tower huh. According to wikipedia it broadcasts things, not produce free electricity. It doesn't mean what I said was true. Or are you just making a tower that takes radio waves and turns 'em into electricity?

lol, I didn't notice I replied 2 years after you posted.

The Wardenclyffe tower isn't meant to produce electricity, it just transmits it.  Though I would be interested in seeing one operate.  When you build it you should write an -able about it with video.  I would like to see its range.

A 30 foot tall metal tower? Yeah, you'll be getting some free electricity alright. Especially during those summer thunderstorms... ;-)

Somethings not right here...
Did you spell Mythbusters "MYTHBUSTE_S" on purpose or what?

Just pointing out the error. Blatantly.

"Creating"(more appropriately freeing) Hydrogen from water using any method will consume energy.  It takes energy to make Oxygen happy when it is forced to either ionize or bond with something else.  This is because water is very energy stable, that is why it is so common. 

The method using Iron and Sulfiric Acid will consume the material used which lose this energy.  This means to produce more Hydrogen you need more iron and sulfiric acid.  These materials would then have to be liberated using electricity/energy before they can be reused.  The result is that it consumes more energy then you would get after including other factors. 

The bigger problem with hydrogen as a fuel is the difficulty in containing it.  Hydrogen has several properties that make it difficult to store.  A big one is Embrittlement.  Sadly, the only way we will likely use hydrogen as a fuel source is fusion.  Though it could easily be used in solar power generation as a chemical battery to store energy for use during low output times.

Right now, the most efficient method in use to produce Hydrogen in large quantities uses Fossil Fuels.  See HERE

 I wonder what we could use to contain hydrogen. Instead of your usual steel tank (which suffers from embrittlement), use a steel tank with a modified inner lining. Like a glass lined tank or something. Or maybe use a ceramic lining. 

If they confirm it, you must bow before us knexers.

Anything is possible.

That one should be tested.

Ya, and when he eats beef jerky he craps gunpowder. He then uses the gunpowder to kill a cow and make more jerky. I want them to test the five second rule. Not that exicting though=P

Didn't see that one. How'd it do?

IF IT WAS LETHAL THE PROBABLE WOULD NOT PUT THAT SHOW UP!!~!

but a lot of the stuff the buy if like monitered by Federal officer to make sure that they dont blow something up even though they know what they are doing. i mean just about everything can be taken and modded to become lethal to humans but certain types of weapons like explosives that they make is they have a bomb squad their

What if the magnet, instead of containing the gas in a cylinder, molds it into a funnel, with the gas spewing out at the end? That's what I'm picturing will happen.

well yes, youve got the jist of it, but we cant have the lightsaber on the entire time, there would have to be a chamber to hold the gas in.

lol, thanks, but i seriously, i mean it.... ya think something like that would work?

 How about the power source? Oh, wait, lightsaber vs. lightsaber = 2 dead people. Why? because the toxic gas will just flow around each other and poison the other guy! Well, both of them! How about my design:

A 1 foot long cylinder will contain some carbon nanotubes to store the megawatts of energy needed to power the thing, a cylinder that contains lots of compressed air (as much as you need), a spark gap/plug (whatever you call it), and a strong, super heat resistant ceramic that can fold up to fit in the ligthsaber (hence, the 1 foot long reason). Of course, an electromagnet.

Here's the idea: the tube will contain the mentioned parts, the ceramic tube shoots out, the ceramic will have holes, the air rushes out of the holes, the spark thing will do the work on the air making plasma, the magnet will keep the plasma from going out of control. The carbon nanotubes, thanks to its unusual electrical properties, will store enough power for all the work. The ceramic shoots out because of the rush of air. The air comes from a super compressor (kinda like a jet turbine).

If you have any questions just reply here!!!

listen here's the scenario 2 people having a gun fight ( eg a cop and a criminal) the cop shoots his bullet into the barrel of the criminal then the criminal shoots his gun but the gun is blocked at the gas in side the gun become such a high pressure the gun explodes killing the criminal

I heard about that happening last year in my area. I wanted to test if it was possible just to shoot a bullet down the other guy's barrel. The only way I can see it happening: the cop is using an AR-15 or a glock, and the other guy is using a .45 or a .50 ( or maybe a nitro 600 LOL)

it wasn't completely busted.  the bullet did actually go into the barrel.  The part of the myth they were testing that busted it was that the bullet was removed intact from the gun that was hit.  Either way, bullet shredded but target gun survived.

wow seriously?

Oh I get it,the person who made this up says hes ugly between 12 and 2 and he doesn't want to see his scary face in the mirror

haha, it already exists and has for about 10 years.

How about the myth of the sticky caps lock key, which mysteriously turns on when typing in forum topics?

LMAO! Confirmed!

Confirmed! (Well, sometimes Plausible, but yeah....)