MythBusters - Chicken Cannon revisited.

[Peter Rees]

THE MYTH
That mythbusters first attempt at the chicken cannon myth was valid...
Ok ok.. firing our chickens at an unrated light aircraft windshield
was like testing the difference between a .22 and a 357 magnum... by
firing htem at a cardboard box.

In order to address previous concerns about our results on the frozen
Vs Thawed chick Cannon Myth we decided to run another series of tests.

THE SETUP
This time we decided to fire our chickens at an imovable object... the
idea being to see if there was any difference between the collision
time of a frozen vs thawed chicken.

We set the target speed for our cannon at between 200 and 250
kilometers per hour. Our version of the myth is set in Britain where
the top speed for high speed trains is 225 km/h.

Our chickens were 4lbs or 2kg. Each was packed in a foam sabot to
facilitate firing.

This time we used our high speed camera and a one foot grid to measure
both the speed of the chicken... and the impact time of the chicken.

THE RESULTS
We ran three trials... and in all tests... the impact time of the
chickens... frozen or thawed... wasthe same... 7/1000 of a second.

MYTHBUSTED
Again we have to conclude that at 225 kmph or 140 mph... there is no
difference in impulse force between a frozen and a thawed chicken.

[Alan J Rosenthal]

Post by Peter Rees
MYTHBUSTED
Again we have to conclude that at 225 kmph or 140 mph... there is no
difference in impulse force between a frozen and a thawed chicken.

I think that most tellers of this UL assume that frozen chickens have a
greater impact because they are heavier; that is, that defrosting involves
a loss of mass.

[Charles Bishop]

Post by Alan J Rosenthal

Post by Peter Rees
MYTHBUSTED
Again we have to conclude that at 225 kmph or 140 mph... there is no
difference in impulse force between a frozen and a thawed chicken.

I think that most tellers of this UL assume that frozen chickens have a
greater impact because they are heavier; that is, that defrosting involves
a loss of mass.

I think it's because one is frozen solid, and the other is squishy.
They've extrapolated from dropping a frozen one on their foot and a room
temp one. The frozen one will hurt more.

What Peter is saying, is that at 225 kph, there isn't this difference.

charles

[Helge Moulding]

Charles Bishop wrote,

Post by Charles Bishop
What Peter is saying, is that at 225 kph, there isn't this difference.

I'm not convinced this is valid. The idea that a thawed chicken and a
frozen chicken deform equally easily at 225 kph goes against common
sense. There's also the matter that a thawed chicken spreads its force
over a much larger area than a frozen chicken.

[Lee Ayrton]

Post by Helge Moulding
Charles Bishop wrote,

Post by Charles Bishop
What Peter is saying, is that at 225 kph, there isn't this difference.

I'm not convinced this is valid. The idea that a thawed chicken and a
frozen chicken deform equally easily at 225 kph goes against common
sense. There's also the matter that a thawed chicken spreads its force
over a much larger area than a frozen chicken.

That's what my intuition said as well. Then the other side of my brain
started yammering something about "above a certain speed, yada yada
yada... water might as well be concrete, blah blah..." and then it ran off
ranting something about tornadoes, straw and utility poles.

Now I've got to find the damned thing before the cat finds it and thinks
that it is some sort of toy.

[Peter Rees]

Post by Charles Bishop
I think it's because one is frozen solid, and the other is squishy.
They've extrapolated from dropping a frozen one on their foot and a room
temp one. The frozen one will hurt more.
What Peter is saying, is that at 225 kph, there isn't this difference.

CHARLES... thank you... this is totally correct. The frozen vs thawed
chicken drop is a great example... at this slow speed there is
definately a difference between the two... as most people would have
experienced... however once you reach speeds of 225kmh/ the affect of
freezing the chicken becomes insignificant.

[rzed]

Post by Peter Rees

Post by Charles Bishop
I think it's because one is frozen solid, and the other is squishy.
They've extrapolated from dropping a frozen one on their foot and
a room temp one. The frozen one will hurt more.
What Peter is saying, is that at 225 kph, there isn't this
difference.

CHARLES... thank you... this is totally correct. The frozen vs
thawed chicken drop is a great example... at this slow speed there
is definately a difference between the two... as most people would
have experienced... however once you reach speeds of 225kmh/ the
affect of freezing the chicken becomes insignificant.

Yabbut ... that's the UL, isn't it? The advice to thaw the chickens is
supposed to correct the problem, right? It isn't a test to see whether
a bird can break a windshield, but whether a frozen will while a
thawed one won't.

--
rzed

[Chris Clarke]

Post by Peter Rees
however once you reach speeds of 225kmh/ the affect of
freezing the chicken becomes insignificant.

Except to the chicken.

[Don Freeman]

Post by Chris Clarke

Post by Peter Rees
however once you reach speeds of 225kmh/ the affect of
freezing the chicken becomes insignificant.

Except to the chicken.

They first tried using ducks, but they kept... (oh, you know.)

[Jason Tinling]

Post by Don Freeman
They first tried using ducks, but they kept... (oh, you know.)

Losing their lapel mics?

[Lon Stowell]

Post by Jason Tinling

Post by Don Freeman
They first tried using ducks, but they kept... (oh, you know.)

Losing their lapel mics?

Quacking the windshield whether frozen or thawed.

[Don Freeman]

Post by Lon Stowell

Post by Jason Tinling

Post by Don Freeman
They first tried using ducks, but they kept... (oh, you know.)

Losing their lapel mics?

Quacking the windshield whether frozen or thawed.

Regardless of echo.

[Lee Rudolph]

Post by Chris Clarke

Post by Peter Rees
however once you reach speeds of 225kmh/ the affect of
freezing the chicken becomes insignificant.

Except to the chicken.

Do chickens suffer flattening of affect?

Lee "and does the `K' in `KFC' really stand for ... `Kansas'?" Rudolph

[Helge Moulding]

The frozen vs thawed chicken drop is a great example... at this slow
speed there is definately a difference between the two... as most
people would have experienced...

Most people probably have not dropped a frozen chicken on their foot,
and then compared that with the effects of a thawed chicken. But I
understand what you mean: this is where everyone's intuition comes
from.

however once you reach speeds of 225kmh/ the affect of freezing the
chicken becomes insignificant.

You're probably correct. 225 km/h amounts to 62 m/s, which means that
the 25 cm chicken would have to deform to *splat* in .004 seconds.
That's not a lot of time.

On the other hand, what about flight time? A frozen chicken keeps its
compact form for the entire traverse. A thawed chicken should have
some little time to "flutter," right? I gather that makes no
difference, either? What's the distance from muzzel to target? Would
a greater distance change the outcome of the experiment? Do we know
what distance is used in the real testing?

[Lee Ayrton]

Post by Alan J Rosenthal

Post by Peter Rees
MYTHBUSTED
Again we have to conclude that at 225 kmph or 140 mph... there is no
difference in impulse force between a frozen and a thawed chicken.

I think that most tellers of this UL assume that frozen chickens have a
greater impact because they are heavier; that is, that defrosting involves
a loss of mass.

I thought the common preception was that frozen chickens were harder.


Collateral stuff: I recently visited a well established manufacturer of
aircraft propellers, aircraft jet engines and assorted areospace devices.
While chatting with someone from their in-house documenting section (I'm
being deliberately vague here, as I'm unclear on how far-reaching their
confidentiality requirements are) I found that they maintained a wind
tunnel for foreign object damage (FOD) impact testing. Depending on the
requirements of the test, the debris introduced ran from sand to small
rocks, nuts and bolts to large chunks of metal, and from chickens to
geese. The testing was both non-destructive and destructive and was
documented by high-speed motion pictures.

The contact thought the chicken cannon story was fairly amusing.

[Bev Hamilton]

MythBusters question not related to the Chicken Cannon:

"Thursday October 23 at 08:00 pm EDT the show will go to Mission:Space
at EPCOT."

What are you doing at M:S?

Bev "just another Disney fanatic" Hamilton

[R H Draney]

Post by Peter Rees
This time we decided to fire our chickens at an imovable object...

It's moments like this that really make me miss a newsreader that gives good
support to .sig files....r

[Chocoholic]

Post by Peter Rees
THE MYTH
That mythbusters first attempt at the chicken cannon myth was valid...
Ok ok.. firing our chickens at an unrated light aircraft windshield
was like testing the difference between a .22 and a 357 magnum... by
firing htem at a cardboard box.
In order to address previous concerns about our results on the frozen
Vs Thawed chick Cannon Myth we decided to run another series of tests.
THE SETUP
This time we decided to fire our chickens at an imovable object... the
idea being to see if there was any difference between the collision
time of a frozen vs thawed chicken.
We set the target speed for our cannon at between 200 and 250
kilometers per hour. Our version of the myth is set in Britain where
the top speed for high speed trains is 225 km/h.
Our chickens were 4lbs or 2kg. Each was packed in a foam sabot to
facilitate firing.
This time we used our high speed camera and a one foot grid to measure
both the speed of the chicken... and the impact time of the chicken.
THE RESULTS
We ran three trials... and in all tests... the impact time of the
chickens... frozen or thawed... wasthe same... 7/1000 of a second.
MYTHBUSTED
Again we have to conclude that at 225 kmph or 140 mph... there is no
difference in impulse force between a frozen and a thawed chicken.

Oh, come on! The difference is the consistency of the projectile! There's a
parallel thread about 'frangible bullets' running right now with discussion
about the effects of different bullet construction and you're measuring time
to impact on a cardboard box??? I'd say you completely missed the point of
the UL on this one.

[David]

Post by Peter Rees
THE MYTH
That mythbusters first attempt at the chicken cannon myth was valid...
Ok ok.. firing our chickens at an unrated light aircraft windshield
was like testing the difference between a .22 and a 357 magnum... by
firing htem at a cardboard box.
In order to address previous concerns about our results on the frozen
Vs Thawed chick Cannon Myth we decided to run another series of tests.
THE SETUP
This time we decided to fire our chickens at an imovable object... the
idea being to see if there was any difference between the collision
time of a frozen vs thawed chicken.
We set the target speed for our cannon at between 200 and 250
kilometers per hour. Our version of the myth is set in Britain where
the top speed for high speed trains is 225 km/h.
Our chickens were 4lbs or 2kg. Each was packed in a foam sabot to
facilitate firing.
This time we used our high speed camera and a one foot grid to measure
both the speed of the chicken... and the impact time of the chicken.
THE RESULTS
We ran three trials... and in all tests... the impact time of the
chickens... frozen or thawed... wasthe same... 7/1000 of a second.
MYTHBUSTED
Again we have to conclude that at 225 kmph or 140 mph... there is no
difference in impulse force between a frozen and a thawed chicken.

Peter,

I would be inclined to think that if you gave the nice folks over at Lee
Aerospace in Wichita, KS a call, they could supply you with a scratched or
otherwise not-available-for-retail-sale real bona fide big ol' thick jet
windshield for testing the proper way. I can get name/number of the person
to contact if you are so inclined.
I am so ashamed for Lucy, though.

--
David


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003