# Jamie Hyneman (of Mythbusters) uses Fenix (and Linux)



## meuge (Jan 30, 2008)

I was pretty sure I saw him using a Fenix L1 in one of the episodes last year, but now it is finally official, as he notes the light in his article in Popular Mechanics:



Jamie Hyneman said:


> *Flashlights and other small electrical devices that run on exotic batteries.*
> 
> I have a lovely little LED flashlight called the Fenix that puts out 1 watt, uses a single AA battery and lasts for months of use. If you look around, most similar flashlights on the market use lithium or other expensive batteries. The catch? Unless you need a high-intensity beam, they don't work any better or last any longer than mine does. I'd be happier if compact LED flashlights that require $13 batteries had never become so mainstream.



I presume it's the L1P that he's talking about... but thought it would be interesting to share.

----------------------------------

He also recommends using Linux:


Jamie Hyneman said:


> In the tech world this phenomenon is known as “software bloat” or “feature bloat.” It's a well-documented problem and a frequent complaint about Windows OSs—Vista in particular. In addition to being buggy, the extra features tend to bog down your system by demanding more processing power and memory.
> ...
> There's another solution available to consumers: Switch to a Linux-based OS such as Ubuntu. Since most Linux OSs are free, there's no business reason to bloat up the system with feature frills.



My respect for Jamie (already substantial) has just skyrocketed.


----------



## Lobo (Jan 30, 2008)

That's pretty cool. Both choises. 
Somebody should send him a single AA cree.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 30, 2008)

That is really not a compliment for Fenix IMHO. Mythbusters is such a low-level junk that I would not want to have my product featured there.


----------



## meuge (Jan 30, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> That is really not a compliment for Fenix IMHO. Mythbusters is such a low-level junk that I would not want to have my product featured there.


This is offtopic, so perhaps we can discuss it elsewhere... but why so harsh? I am a very picky TV watcher, and a scientist by trade... yet I enjoy Mythbusters a lot. It's just... fun... in a geeky sort of way.


----------



## MSaxatilus (Jan 30, 2008)

$13 for Lithium batteries?!?!?

Obviously he doesn't know how to use the internet... or how to look for a bargain.

MSax


----------



## Strauss (Jan 30, 2008)

Man, I thought Mythbusters was a good show! :thinking:


----------



## Illum (Jan 30, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> That is really not a compliment for Fenix IMHO. Mythbusters is such a low-level junk that I would not want to have my product featured there.



wha huh...?!
low level junk? oo:


----------



## greenLED (Jan 30, 2008)

meuge said:


> but why so harsh? I am a very picky TV watcher, and a scientist by trade... yet I enjoy Mythbusters a lot. It's just... fun... in a geeky sort of way.


Well... for starters, have you stopped to think about the bias in their "scientific method"? Seems to be a completely different version from the one we use in real research.

OTOH, I totally agree with you and take it as pure geeky entertainment, even if I roll my eyes at some of their "definite" proofs, testing protocols, and unsubstantiated conclusions. It's fun to see others blow up and break things I could only dream of doing myself.


----------



## meuge (Jan 30, 2008)

greenLED said:


> Well... for starters, have you stopped to think about the bias in their "scientific method"? Seems to be a completely different version from the one we use in real research.


I apply willing suspension of disbelief to their methods. In 90% of their myths, 5 minutes of research and 1 minute of calculations would have yielded the answer without any experiments. 


greenLED said:


> OTOH, I totally agree with you and take it as pure geeky entertainment, even if I roll my eyes at some of their "definite" proofs, testing protocols, and unsubstantiated conclusions. It's fun to see others blow up and break things I could only dream of doing myself.


Exactly. It's a good-natured show, that just feels upbeat, happy, and fun. I can count the number of similarly-spirited programs on one hand... which is why 80% of the time (I watch probably less than 6 hours of TV per week) my TV is tuned to "Mythbusters" or "Dirty Jobs".


----------



## violatorjf (Jan 30, 2008)

I think the beginning of the series was better than it is now. Back then I could actually turn the show on and say "Hey, I always wondered if that myth was real or not..." but now it seems like they're grabbing at thin air for more 'myths' to bust. Half the time it seems like they get one e-mail from someone that says they heard this and that, and if it sounds interesting enough they try it. Sometimes it's good entertainment, but other times its rather boring.


----------



## Cuso (Jan 30, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> That is really not a compliment for Fenix IMHO. Mythbusters is such a low-level junk that I would not want to have my product featured there.


Comon' now, its entertainment television...what where you expecting Physics 101?? Its a good show, and it fulfills its intended purpose..to entertain. But back to the topic , a 1 watt?? Please someone give this man a Cree light..


----------



## MikeLip (Jan 30, 2008)

Hey, where else are you going to see someone blow the tar out of a fish in a barrel with a Cadillac-mounted mini-gun? That was awesome. Dumb but huge fun.


----------



## greenLED (Jan 30, 2008)

What bugs me the most about MythBusters is their "let's do whatever it takes to make things happen", and then declare something busted regardless of whether the circumstances they forced would be impossible to encounter in the real world. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't actually think that's completely bad to do (hey, it wouldn't be entertaining otherwise and I'd be watching something else) , it's just that people then go around saying "this" and "that" can happen when the reality would dictate otherwise.




meuge said:


> ...my TV is tuned to "Mythbusters" or "Dirty Jobs".


 You gotta add Alton Brown's "Good Eats" - makes me hungry just to think about it. Plus, he's also a gear junky who likes knives and bikes - doesn't get better than that.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 30, 2008)

The Cree is also binned at 1W! :nana: 

I think the show is ego-driven, insubstantial and has nothing to do with its title. It is just long-winded and takes forever to arrive at a boring or insignificant conclusion. It is a waste of time. It isn't even funny.

Sorry for the OT rant, but the impulse was stronger than I thought. It has been cooking for quite some time in me it seems.

bernie


----------



## Mercaptan (Jan 30, 2008)

Nearly every single firearms myth they have attempted to explore has resulted in being 'busted,' yet outcry on their fan forums lead them to retest nearly every 'busted' myth.

The result? Generally, the original results were overturned. 

And likewise... while I am a scientist by trade, I cannot suspend my disbelief. What they do is a misservice to the scientific community by attempting to follow under false pretenses. Their blatant lack of consistent (or authentic) setups and conditions gives them even less credibility.


----------



## Katdaddy (Jan 30, 2008)

I was going to post an interview I saw with the Easter Bunny where he menitoned he used a SF A2, but I'm sure somebody would tell me he doesn't exist so I'll keep quiet.


----------



## greenLED (Jan 30, 2008)

Katdaddy said:


> I was going to post an interview I saw with the Easter Bunny where he menitoned he used a SF A2, but I'm sure somebody would tell me he doesn't exist so I'll keep quiet.


Well... that Easter Bunny deal is just something he does on weekends. His real job is with Energizer.


----------



## Lobo (Jan 30, 2008)

About the show, I think most people with a brain can figure out that many of the tests they perform doesn't completely represent the actual situation they are trying to simulate, thus, the tests doesn't really prove anything. Still, it's a bloody good show. It's fun, and I like the atmoshpere. And where else will you see somebody use an actual black powder cannon to simulate an attack on a pirate ship etc. Or somebody harassing a skunk, in the name of science.


----------



## greenLED (Jan 30, 2008)

oops


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 30, 2008)

That was not a Cadillac. That was a GMC Yukon that had a Dillon Aero M134D minigun mounted to it in a custom turret.

http://72.215.196.56/sgyee/dillon_q/dillonaeroq_model.jpg

Videos:
http://72.215.196.56/sgyee/dillon_q/dillon_q_car.wmv

Footage of the attached video was shot in the Scottsdale Airpark area where Dillon Precision and Dillon Aero is housed, along with trails north of Scottsdale for some of the helicopter shots.

-Steve



MikeLip said:


> Hey, where else are you going to see someone blow the tar out of a fish in a barrel with a Cadillac-mounted mini-gun? That was awesome. Dumb but huge fun.


----------



## MikeLip (Jan 30, 2008)

Yeah, fine, whatever. I STILL don't see the gun in that pic!


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 30, 2008)

Heh - unfortunately Dillon tends to show accessories that are hard to find and acquire. They get featured in the catalog yet you can't get them. Some of them are one of a kind. Wah.

-Steve



MikeLip said:


> Yeah, fine, whatever. I STILL don't see the gun in that pic!


----------



## yaesumofo (Jan 30, 2008)

Some people just don't understand this type of humor.
It flies over their head.
I can't imagine that the show translates well to German either.
While it is easy to criticize some of the methods used in the show please don't forget that it is entertainment. It isn't "real" science though they do attempt to replicate the situations as best as they can.
I suspect some jealousy here.
I love the freedom that mythbusters has to use extreme methods to accomplish the REAL GOAL which is to create loud bangs and blow crap up. They do this very well.
Activities of this nature are probably Illegal in Germany.Too bad.
The other thing is we have no idea how much they butcher the show. The German censors could be mangling the show to death. For all we know it is a totally different show in Europe/Germany. 
Yaesumofo





Kiessling said:


> The Cree is also binned at 1W! :nana:
> 
> I think the show is ego-driven, insubstantial and has nothing to do with its title. It is just long-winded and takes forever to arrive at a boring or insignificant conclusion. It is a waste of time. It isn't even funny.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carpenter (Jan 30, 2008)

MikeLip said:


> Yeah, fine, whatever. I STILL don't see the gun in that pic!


 
+5


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 30, 2008)

Actually, there are a bunchaton of things that American censors don't allow that European censors do allow.

I'll give one great case in point - the farting episode. The farting episode was heavily edited and had tons of outtakes. The British and Australian episodes are up on YouTube. Look for "Do Pretty Girls Fart" and you'll find it. It tracked Kari and how many times she passed gas.

-Steve




yaesumofo said:


> The other thing is we have no idea how much they butcher the show. The German censors could be mangling the show to death. For all we know it is a totally different show in Europe/Germany.
> Yaesumofo


----------



## mspeterson (Jan 30, 2008)

Beastmaster said:


> That was not a Cadillac. That was a GMC Yukon that had a Dillon Aero M134D minigun mounted to it in a custom turret.
> 
> http://72.215.196.56/sgyee/dillon_q/dillonaeroq_model.jpg
> 
> ...




Mythbusters is ok, but would be greatly improved by making this nice young actress the star, and featuring her driving around in that truck shooting at the current cast, while they try and conduct their "tests".....:devil:

Oh, and give her a Surefire Hellfire to go with it! or a tank light!!!


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 30, 2008)

yaesumofo said:


> Some people just don't understand this type of humor.
> It flies over their head.
> I can't imagine that the show translates well to German either.
> While it is easy to criticize some of the methods used in the show please don't forget that it is entertainment. It isn't "real" science though they do attempt to replicate the situations as best as they can.
> ...




Understanding is not the problem, liking is. Understanding isn't too difficult, since it is rather dumb. I do not think it is entertaining either.
If they just wanted to "create loud bangs" and "blow crap up", they should do better. If they want to bring across anything else, they utterly fail IMHO. 

I do not know if it translates well or how it might be butchered by foreign television channels as I have seen it in English. 


Thank you for the analytic interpretation for my motives. I am embarrassed that I can invoke the impression of being jealous of such a show.

One thing I have to admit though ... the freedom of doing all those things is cool. We do not have that here. It's a pity they destroy an interesting concept like that.

bernie


----------



## hopkins (Jan 30, 2008)

I'll have to back the Mythbusters methods as well thought out
entertainment that alot of people watch and say "ya I could rig
that up and test the myth also if I had time, money, and a permit to use
explosives!"

Think thats the real attraction of the show. Normal looking peeps
messing around and not some white smock wearing lab professors in
a clean room carefully turning dials.
*The Mythbusters are us.* :thumbsup:


----------



## Khaytsus (Jan 30, 2008)

Yep, show is junk.. They either blow stuff up, or try to blow stuff up, or shoot something. It's fine for a "I am man, hear me grunt" kind of show I guess.


----------



## Lobo (Jan 30, 2008)

yaesumofo said:


> I suspect some jealousy here.
> I love the freedom that mythbusters has to use extreme methods to accomplish the REAL GOAL which is to create loud bangs and blow crap up. They do this very well.
> Activities of this nature are probably Illegal in Germany.Too bad.
> The other thing is we have no idea how much they butcher the show. The German censors could be mangling the show to death. For all we know it is a totally different show in Europe/Germany.
> Yaesumofo



LOL
Well, I can't speak for Germany(well, too some extent, since it isn't much different there than in Sweden), but censoring Mythbusters and jealousy? 
I'm pretty sure that they can show a lot more stuff here that they can't show in the States (T&A, bad language, violence, religious controvercy etc etc). You're FCC seems to be a lot harsher, I don't even know the name for the equivalent in Sweden, or if we have any. And they show Mythbusters on Discovery here, so I'm very doubtfull that they change anything at all from the american version(except for the british speaker voice).
And it seems like most of the blowing up Mythbusters do are illegal where they are too, since they usually get a lot of permits and stuff before they do anything big. The reason we don't have our own shows like this is probably because of budget. Some british shows have equivalent budget as Mythbusters, like Braniac(a poor copy IMHO allthough they like to blow up stuff) and Top Gear for example. I'm doubting that it's a cultural difference (hell, most of the stuff we watch on TV is from you guys), and more a matter of taste. And nothing wrong in that.


----------



## Phaetos (Jan 30, 2008)

I love Mythbusters, particularly Kari  But the show is far more fun or interesting than that new one "Smash Lab". That show just blows, even if their budget is seemingly infinite. I saw the first episode where they were to test this crumbling concrete as a car barrier on the highways. One group made a slab of the stuff that was huge, like 40 or 50 yards by 20 yards. Insane. And the show sucked.


----------



## meuge (Jan 30, 2008)

Phaetos said:


> I love Mythbusters, particularly Kari  But the show is far more fun or interesting than that new one "Smash Lab". That show just blows, even if their budget is seemingly infinite. I saw the first episode where they were to test this crumbling concrete as a car barrier on the highways. One group made a slab of the stuff that was huge, like 40 or 50 yards by 20 yards. Insane. And the show sucked.



My thoughts exactly. I watched it with my girlfriend and I was appalled. There was literally no chemistry AT ALL between the hosts. The dialogue was dull and over-scripted... as were their emotions... and the "experiments" were boring and annoying, regardless of their (truly monstrous) budget. If this is Discovery's way of telling us that they plan to take Mythbusters off the air, I can only stare in awe of their stupidity. 

Then again, here's a little Discovery Channel anecdote. In college, I was working in a virology lab, where one of the post-docs was investigating the possibility that the 10k AD extinction was caused by a virus. The Discovery channel did a 30 minute segment about our lab and these studies, as part of a 2-hour special. When I watched the completed product, I was amazed that they literally managed to get EVERYTHING wrong about what we were doing, essentially rendering the segment incomprehensible. 

It was almost a year before I could stand to watch Discovery again, after that.


----------



## greenLED (Jan 30, 2008)

Phaetos said:


> I love Mythbusters, particularly Kari


*cough*Ifsheonlyworethatreddress*cough*


----------



## Illum (Jan 30, 2008)

Kiessling, lets just say us guys here in the US aren't privileged to have shows that has true humor and solid, to-the-point methods and your so familiar with...but keep in mind the show is based on Myths "submitted" by its watchers...I presume in the US :thinking:

Its a show built on the "thriller" genre...I don't know how you wind up finding humor in it, but hey, don't rate these shows with your high standards, it wouldn't be worth it

aside from "Frei Schnauze," "Stromberg", etc thats comparable to the US based "whos line is it anyway" and "the office" I don't know much about German TV shows. perhaps you could do the honor to enlighten us [in a separate thread of course]


----------



## Kremer (Jan 30, 2008)

Phaetos said:


> I love Mythbusters, particularly Kari  But the show is far more fun or interesting than that new one "Smash Lab". That show just blows, even if their budget is seemingly infinite. I saw the first episode where they were to test this crumbling concrete as a car barrier on the highways. One group made a slab of the stuff that was huge, like 40 or 50 yards by 20 yards. Insane. And the show sucked.



+100 Mythbusters tries to be a _little_ scientific, but all in good nature it ends up being fun. 

That smashlab show they were trying to be completely serious about solving the worlds problems, then they take random (and completely ratarded) guesses at whatever the problem was, get it wrong, adjust the target, and WOW, we stopped a bus!!!! The problem is that the test was to stop a car, which they failed at horribly, and the guy driving the bus actually ended up hitting the brakes to stop. If they have any sort of science or engineering advisors on that show, they need to be fired.
~Dougk


----------



## Phaetos (Jan 30, 2008)

greenLED said:


> *cough*Ifsheonlyworethatreddress*cough*



There are some rather lovely FHM photos of her ....


----------



## TorchBoy (Jan 30, 2008)

Kremer said:


> If they have any sort of science or engineering advisors on that show, they need to be fired.


Maybe they just don't listen to them.


----------



## Illum (Jan 30, 2008)

caught your fancy GreenLED?:huh:


----------



## Bror Jace (Jan 30, 2008)

I love the show ... as mentioned above, it's the chemistry between the hosts that is a large part of its success. :thumbsup:

Scientific method? That would be as much fun (maybe exactly the same as) watching paint dry. Seriously, I am thankful for the engineers and scientists out there doing their serious work ... but I also like these nerdsy characters blunder their way through these amateurish experiments.

What they prove is open to interpretation ... but I sure like to watch them do their thing.

"Smash Lab" is an idea that works on paper ... make a show not unlike "Mythbusters" but have MORE explosions and destruction ... but it fails _utterly_. Why? No chemistry between the hosts.

Kari = +3


----------



## Kremer (Jan 30, 2008)

TorchBoy said:


> Maybe they just don't listen to them.



yeah, that too, in which case the writers need to be fired.


----------



## Fallingwater (Jan 30, 2008)

Mythbusters is not science. It's fun pseudoscience.
That said, Jamie Whatshisname obviously doesn't know how to use eBay.


----------



## Sgt. LED (Jan 31, 2008)

Phaetos said:


> There are some rather lovely FHM photos of her ....


LINK TO THAT?!
:candle:
Oh yeah mythbusters is ok in my book too. I only wish I had their budget for my projects!


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 31, 2008)

Gee. Google "Kari Byron FHM" and you get this as the first one:

http://www.fhmonline.com/articles-1276.asp


----------



## WadeF (Jan 31, 2008)

Jamie has been hired by some big companies to do special effects for their commercials. They've built robots for robot wars, etc. They know a thing or two about a thing or two. 

Also what is funnier than a couple of guys removing the thermostat from a water heater and plugging up over pressure relief valve (or whatever) and sitting there only to see it explode and fly hundreds of feet in the air to their completely amazement?  

I got a good laugh out of the exploding water heater. There are a lot of moments on the show where they don't know what will happen, and when something happens they aren't expecting it's all the more funny.


----------



## dano (Jan 31, 2008)

Who ever said it was a scientific show?

M5 Industries, where the show is filmed, is a Special Effects house in S.F. (near TADgear) owned by Hyneman. He and Adam Savage aren't friends, and do not associate outside of the show, which probably adds a bit to the show's overall chemistry (and offers an interesting dichotomy to Kari, Tori and Grant).

It was never meant to be purely scientific. Overall, it's entertainment with a little science thrown in (and the occasional visit from MIT).

How'd this get so off topic from the orioginal post..>D'oh!

-dan


----------



## Sigman (Jan 31, 2008)

Side note: Kari, Tori and Grant are running around Anchorage & who knows where else in this vast Alaskan wilderness - chasing moose for a show coming up. I guess Discovery Channel is going to have an "Alaska week" or something like that this spring.

I've not seen them, but one of my son's professors are helping them out...

Edit: I just found out Jamie & Adam are here as well (as in Anchorage)...


----------



## MikeLip (Jan 31, 2008)

mspeterson said:


> Mythbusters is ok, but would be greatly improved by making this nice young actress the star, and featuring her driving around in that truck shooting at the current cast, while they try and conduct their "tests".....:devil:
> 
> Oh, and give her a Surefire Hellfire to go with it! or a tank light!!!



Some of my favorite episodes featured Kari. Not only is she a knockout, she seems to take a genuine joy in blowing things up.


----------



## iSleep (Jan 31, 2008)

hey ... wait , I thought Adam is one of Jamie's employees ?


----------



## MikeSalt (Jan 31, 2008)

Well, this thread very quickly went downhill. Where is your focus people? Focus on the flashlight folks, not the actual programme. This is not IsMythbustersAnyGood.com, we are here to discuss flashlights.

It is impressive that someone outside our little CPF niche has gone on to use a Fenix flashlight. I wonder how he ended up obtaining that light in the first place? Do you reckon he could be a member in these forums?

If he is impressed with the original L1P, please someone, send him a Cree Q5 version. That will really blow his socks off.


----------



## Valolammas (Jan 31, 2008)

Hmm, I'm pretty sure we already had a thread about this... Found it:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/125017

(See post #6 if you want to know where Jamie got his Fenix from.)


----------



## frisco (Jan 31, 2008)

The Fenix is a 1st gen L1P...... How do I know..... I gave it to Jamie as a gift for work he turned my way. Looks like I have to step him up !!!

Keisling: Your intitled to your opinion, I respect that. Although your opinion doesn't mean much because Myth Busters is a VERY Successful TV show for Discovery. 

As a friend of most of the cast. Weird to call them a cast because I knew them when they were just prop builders. What I am most proud of them for is how many young people are enjoying the show and how it inspires people to think!

Below is a photo I took of them in my studio that is several blocks away from M5i.

frisco


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 31, 2008)

frisco said:


> Keisling: Your intitled to your opinion, I respect that. Although your opinion doesn't mean much because Myth Busters is a VERY Successful TV show for Discovery.



So success negates differing opinions? 
And ... what is success? The masses consuming something is success? 

Then LED-Lenser rules and we better forget HDS?

bernie


----------



## WadeF (Jan 31, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> So success negates differing opinions?
> And ... what is success? The masses consuming something is success?


 
Bernie, did you see the one where they took a stuffed dead cat (a real dead cat!) and chopped off the legs and attached it on top of a robotic vehicle (was a battle bot before I think), and they made the cat's legs move back and forth so it would look like it's running. They then drove this stuffed dead cat around to distract a dog or something.  Maybe one of the funniest things ever on Mythbusters.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 31, 2008)

Nope. I only saw about half a dozen episodes, if at all. After all the positive talk I read here on CPF I was so disappointed with the real thing. 
But I will be able to live with it


----------



## TorchBoy (Jan 31, 2008)

WadeF said:


> Bernie, did you see the one where they took a stuffed dead cat (a real dead cat!) .... They then drove this stuffed dead cat around to distract a dog or something.


 That all sounds hilarious. What myth were they testing?

After I read that first bit I thought you were going to say they tried to skin it more than one way. :laughing:


----------



## Hitthespot (Jan 31, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> It is just long-winded and takes forever to arrive at a boring or insignificant conclusion.
> bernie


 
I can certainly agree with that; and at times I have changed the channel right in the middle of the show. The few times I watched it at times it could be entertaining. The cool stuff. C'mon rockets to go around a swing set...pretty funny (entertaining).

Bill


----------



## hopkins (Jan 31, 2008)

We all know how subjective humor is. 
Funny today may not be so next year as we gain life experience
and it is always a bit sad when I realize this has happened!

Wish cartoons seemed funny like they used to. Sigh!
Mythbusters is a great substitute that makes me laugh alot.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 31, 2008)

Hmm...so if I take my Tivo and fast forward all my episodes of Scrapheap Challenge/Junkyard Wars to the end where the two teams compete against each other, does this make me a bad viewer?


----------



## Phaetos (Jan 31, 2008)

WadeF said:


> Jamie has been hired by some big companies to do special effects for their commercials. They've built robots for robot wars, etc. They know a thing or two about a thing or two.
> 
> Also what is funnier than a couple of guys removing the thermostat from a water heater and plugging up over pressure relief valve (or whatever) and sitting there only to see it explode and fly hundreds of feet in the air to their completely amazement?
> 
> I got a good laugh out of the exploding water heater. There are a lot of moments on the show where they don't know what will happen, and when something happens they aren't expecting it's all the more funny.




That was one of the best BOOMS they ever had, only seconded by the Cement truck exploding .. Now that was a BOOOOOMMM!!!!


----------



## BassClefJeff84 (Jan 31, 2008)

I bet that those mythbuster wannabes (smash lab) people use "high tech" mag LED's with pride.


----------



## Burgess (Jan 31, 2008)

Certainly is a very *entertaining* program. 


One of my favorites, in fact ! 


They don't exactly claim that this is "Rocket Science", however. 


I agree that the "cast chemistry" is a *big* part of this show's success.

:twothumbs
_


----------



## sims2k (Feb 1, 2008)

So this is still off topic ... but here my 2 cents about the show .... All I am going to say is I love the show and I have watched it from episode 01. It is a fun and entertaining show that all my family ... girls and guys included ... watch together. Jamie using Fenix LED light is a plus.


----------



## Sigman (Feb 1, 2008)

One has to consider the target audience. Not slamming anyone on board here. It's certainly conceivable a room full of folks that are immersed in day to day high tech careers wouldn't find the show all that great. Yes many of their "challenges" could be proved or disproved via some quick research.

However, as has been stated - it's entertainment. IMHO the show does indeed present concepts, methods, procedures, & analyses that perhaps the target audience hasn't taken the time to consider.

My oldest is in his 3rd year of Civil Engineering studies, the youngest is in his 1st year of Chemical Engineering studies, wife & I both have an avionics/electronics/computer/environmental science background...& we still enjoy it. It tends to stimulate some conversation & thought with our sons while watching (if they aren't out volunteering for Habitat for Humanity, snowboarding, rifle shooting, playing in the "backyard rock band", or doing their never ending homework!  ) Soooo, I guess it's just a bit of good family time we get to share here & there.

BTW, wish I had a facility, tools, & resources Jamie, Adam, Kari, Tori, & Grant have available to them!!


----------



## PAB (Feb 1, 2008)

Kremer said:


> yeah, that too, in which case the writers need to be fired.


 Writers have been on strike.


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 1, 2008)

MSaxatilus said:


> $13 for Lithium batteries?!?!?
> 
> Obviously he doesn't know how to use the internet... or how to look for a bargain.
> 
> MSax


 
He's not a flashaholic, and clearly has no clue that you can get a case of 12 Surefire CR123 cells for about $21. 

I have a feeling that if someone handed him an M6 with the HOLA, he'd likely turn it on while starring down the lamp.

As for the show, it's meant to be entertainment, with just a bit of scientific content tossed in. On that level, it works very well. It's one of the very few shows I enjoy watching on T.V.

BTW, yes; Kari is hot. In one episode, we got to see her tongue-ring. As Chris Rock says, "If a girl has a tongue-ring, she'll probably....."


----------



## MikeSalt (Feb 1, 2008)

frisco said:


> The Fenix is a 1st gen L1P...... How do I know..... I gave it to Jamie as a gift for work he turned my way. Looks like I have to step him up !!!



That was awfully generous of you, and even more generous to offer to step him up. Not only did you give the gift of a flashlight, but you also gave the gift of knowledge. Jamie, as a famous person has the chance to educate many people and in this simple kind act, you have spread the spirit of CPF:thumbsup:


----------



## jzmtl (Feb 1, 2008)

I wonder how many people reading that will go google fenix, then see the price and close the window.


----------



## Sir Lightalot (Feb 1, 2008)

jzmtl said:


> I wonder how many people reading that will go google fenix, then see the price and close the window.



Lets hope they see the lumen rating first:naughty:


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 2, 2008)

Sir Lightalot said:


> Lets hope they see the lumen rating first:naughty:


 
They're not going to have a damn clue what those numbers mean. :lolsign:


----------



## Burgess (Feb 2, 2008)

Yer right about that, Monocrom --


They'll take one look at the Fenix photo, and think . . . .


"Wonder if it's as good as my Mini-Maglite ? ? ?"



_


----------



## Sir Lightalot (Feb 2, 2008)

Burgess said:


> Yer right about that, Monocrom --
> 
> 
> They'll take one look at the Fenix photo, and think . . . .
> ...



Sigh... true dat... maybe they should start rating flashlights by how long you cant see after you blind yourself


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 2, 2008)

Sir Lightalot said:


> Sigh... true dat... maybe they should start rating flashlights by how long you can't see after you blind yourself.


 
Ironically, that's not such a bad idea. :huh:


----------



## Illum (Feb 3, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> Ironically, that's not such a bad idea. :huh:



hopefully they'd set the time frame to milliseconds
slap on a contraption simulating a camera shutter....and :thumbsup:


----------



## JasonC8301 (Feb 3, 2008)

greenLED said:


> You gotta add Alton Brown's "Good Eats" - makes me hungry just to think about it. Plus, he's also a gear junky who likes knives and bikes - doesn't get better than that.



TV for me is the Food Network and TLC/Discovery with some A&E thrown in for me at 2-3 hours a week. 

If you watch closely, you can see Alton Brown use a Surefire E series flashlight (looks like an E2 or E2e in satin silver.)

BTW. I missed Kari's tongue ring but saw the episode about airplane bathrooms where they had her in body tights/thong. Nice posterior on Kari.


----------



## Toohotruk (Feb 4, 2008)

MMMMmmmmmmm....Kari....


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 4, 2008)

Let's try to stay on topic, guys.... No matter how difficult that might be.


----------



## Toohotruk (Feb 4, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> ...IMHO. Mythbusters is such a low-level junk that I would not want to have my product featured there.



Yeah, the *last *thing you would want, is to expose a huge audience to your products...for *free* no less.  

You're a marketing genius!


----------



## Kiessling (Feb 4, 2008)

Quantity is not everything. There is also style and quality. The picture of a product we have in mind is also influenced by the presentation and associations. I wouldn't want mine to be associated with Mythbusters. Fenix might see this differently.
In the end, I don't have a clue in marketing, and I really don't care. I just don't like the show. And I think I made my point clear   :nana:
bernie


----------



## Toohotruk (Feb 4, 2008)

Point taken.


----------



## Kiessling (Feb 4, 2008)

I also think that I will shut up now and let you all enjoy your show ...   :wave:
bernie


----------



## Toohotruk (Feb 4, 2008)

Me too. 

Maybe this thread will get back to what the OP intended...flashlights! :candle:


----------



## slo-ryd (Feb 7, 2008)

I think it's cool he uses a Fenix.

Admittedly the show is very "macho" driven....but then again, fire starting flashlights and retardedly bright HID's make me grin from ear to ear :twothumbs



I'm such a knuckle dragger


----------



## greenLED (Feb 7, 2008)

Funny thing - my son was watching some MB re-runs and he comes running up to me to tell me "I saw Jamie use a Fenix, Dad!"


----------



## katsyonak (Feb 25, 2008)

You can also see him using his Fenix on the Discovery channel videos sections.
The video is called "Jamie's M5 Tour 4" and the Fenix is used from around 03:44:
http://dsc.discovery.com/video/inde...013704&lineupId=1283221956&titleId=1316297982

Some frame captures:


----------



## n4zov (Feb 26, 2008)

Golly I love the show even if it is, "... ego-driven..., insubstantial..., long-winded ..., boring..., insignificant..., a waste of time, and (not) funny." Did I leave anything out?


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 26, 2008)

n4zov said:


> Golly I love the show even if it is, "... ego-driven..., insubstantial..., long-winded ..., boring..., insignificant..., a waste of time, and (not) funny." Did I leave anything out?


 
You forgot "immature."

I likey big explosions too! Yay! Let's blow $#^% up! :twothumbs


----------



## Beastmaster (Feb 26, 2008)

Getting this back on topic - let's see if there's a flashlight myth that we could send them.

And going off topic again - bring back Scottie Chapman. Mmmm....killer bod, cute smile. I like her better than Kari...although Kari in a body stocking (the airline toilet seat episode) was more than interesting....

To paraphrase Marv Alpert - Yeeeeesssssss!!!

-Steve


----------



## Thujone (Feb 26, 2008)

I will stick with Kari thanks... Scottie was OK but as long as you can keep them both from talking I would take Kari every time.


----------



## maxa beam (Feb 26, 2008)

Someone send this man a Novatac 120P.


----------



## karlthev (Feb 26, 2008)

For God's sake *Trim* the silly-*** overgrown mustache and lose the hat....errr..."TAM"... and get a real job! I'd rather play with flashlights and accomplish SOMETHING instead of watch that Tom-foolery!!!!



Karl


----------



## MattK (Feb 26, 2008)

Okay so I'm late to the party on this one but doesn't Jamie have enough of a tech/engineering background not to say stuff like, "puts out 1 watt."

UGH.


----------



## Toohotruk (Feb 26, 2008)

Beastmaster said:


> ...let's see if there's a flashlight myth that we could send them.
> 
> And going off topic again - bring back Scottie Chapman. Mmmm....killer bod, cute smile. I like her better than Kari...although Kari in a body stocking (the airline toilet seat episode) was more than interesting....



I think that's a great idea...a flashlight myth...now if I could just think of one. :thinking: I'm sure somebody out there can come up with at least one good flashlight myth?! 

And if they put it on the air, that would be a great chance for them to become more "educated" about LEDs, high power incans, lumens, lux, watts, etc. They definitely have potential as far as becoming flashaholics...they all have that "geek factor" quality going, at least to an extent.

I liked Scottie when she was on, but Kari is the one that does it for me...:naughty:


----------



## PhotonWrangler (Feb 26, 2008)

Toohotruk said:


> I think that's a great idea...a flashlight myth...now if I could just think of one. :thinking: I'm sure somebody out there can come up with at least one good flashlight myth?!



How about the "myth" that a hotwire can start a fire? :huh:


----------



## Burgess (Feb 27, 2008)

How about the Myth:


*Is a 1-watt flashlight brighter than a 3-watt ?*


Hmmmm ? ? ?



_


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 27, 2008)

PhotonWrangler said:


> How about the "myth" that a hotwire can start a fire? :huh:


 
How about.... How intense of a flashlight do you need to pop a ballon?

The inspiration _just _came to me.


----------



## Burgess (Feb 27, 2008)

yes, nice Balloons.

:naughty:
_


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 27, 2008)

Burgess said:


> yes, nice Balloons.
> 
> :naughty:
> _


 
Oh yes! They're quite lovely.


----------



## Sigman (Feb 27, 2008)

What about the real or imagined myths of lithium batteries as far as venting, exploding, etc? 

Didn't they do one on the exploding laptop?

I believe :thinking: they did the cell phone igniting gas while refueling myth already...


----------



## mossyoak (Feb 27, 2008)

A) they ran out of true myths to bust, about three years ago. 

B) they "bust" myths that arent myths at all, they are well documented occurances (the sniper shooting another sniper through the scope)


----------



## TorchBoy (Feb 27, 2008)

mossyoak said:


> B) they "bust" myths that arent myths at all, they are well documented occurances (the sniper shooting another sniper through the scope)


Didn't they bust that one? I remember they had big trouble doing it. If the sniper _missed_ the scope it would be a kill.

Granted, the Torch setting things on fire isn't a myth but it would be educational. While it wouldn't make anything explode it would at least start a few fires. How about someone start an urban myth about a guy who made a torch so bright it ___ (fill in the blank).

Blinded him or set fire to his garage when he turned it on? (Someone must be able to do better than that.)


----------



## shroomy (Feb 27, 2008)

They almost busted it; If I recall they used a documented case from the Vietnam or Korean war, so they used the kind of scope that was supposedly involved (or that they figured was involved). Of course they didn't use armor piercing ammo to begin with, and by the time they switched over to it they were almost out of scopes to shoot through. I think they were on the very last scope when Jamie pulled the shot off, and declared the myth plausible.


----------



## katsyonak (Feb 27, 2008)

Remember that these people have a BIG budget, so try to think of a 'myth' which involves lots of LEDs or something like that 
Maybe something like, How many high power LEDs does it take to [Fill The Blank]?


----------



## TorchBoy (Feb 27, 2008)

"It takes 70 Crees to make a Data Bank 70." (Funnily enough.) Mythical performance, but not a myth. :thinking:


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 27, 2008)

katsyonak said:


> .... How many high power LEDs does it take to [Fill The Blank]?


 
replace the Sun?


----------



## katsyonak (Feb 27, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> replace the Sun?


Or maybe, what kind of a flashlight does it take to be able to project a visible from earth light spot on the darkened half of the surface of the moon?


----------



## mossyoak (Feb 27, 2008)

TorchBoy said:


> Didn't they bust that one? I remember they had big trouble doing it. If the sniper _missed_ the scope it would be a kill.



Thats what i mean. they say it was busted. but it actually happened. thats like busting the myth of the titanic sinking. you cant, it actually sunk.


----------



## maxa beam (Feb 27, 2008)

I sent them a myth that HID lights (Maxabeam) can stop the speed camera from seeing you.

If they try it, they'll be complete morons.


----------



## mossyoak (Feb 27, 2008)

give them time, they are getting desperate for myths to bust.


----------



## MattK (Feb 27, 2008)

maxa beam said:


> I sent them a myth that HID lights (Maxabeam) can stop the speed camera from seeing you.
> 
> If they try it, they'll be complete morons.



Isn't a Maxa Beam XSA and not HID?


----------



## shroomy (Feb 27, 2008)

mossyoak said:


> Thats what i mean. they say it was busted. but it actually happened. thats like busting the myth of the titanic sinking. you cant, it actually sunk.



Wait, I would have sworn they didn't bust that one?


----------



## TorchBoy (Feb 27, 2008)

I think katsyonak may have it: "The light that burns twice as bright, burns half as long." Adage rather than myth, but they do a bunch of those sometimes.

And to see a visible light on the moon requires a high power laser pointed straight at one of the retroreflective mirrors left there (the laser dot is ~3km across on the moon's surface), and a stroppy telescope to see the reflection.


----------



## maxa beam (Feb 27, 2008)

TorchBoy said:


> I think katsyonak may have it: "The light that burns twice as bright, burns half as long." Adage rather than myth, but they do a bunch of those sometimes.
> 
> And to see a visible light on the moon requires a high power laser pointed straight at one of the retroreflective mirrors left there (the laser dot is ~3km across on the moon's surface), and a stroppy telescope to see the reflection.


It'd be many, many times larger than 3 km. And be very faint. Atmospheric reflection would reflect 90% of the power, the rest would disperse.

You'd need a very powerfull laser, indeed.


----------



## hopkins (Feb 27, 2008)

Mythbusters needs to bust the myth about UFO's being real alien spaceships;
when they really are all just:
helium filled, 
mini-dirigibles, 
remote controlled, 
with *blinking LED's attached*, 
operated by prankster college students.

they could build a black triangle and fly it outside over their shop at night to test if it looked good enough to fool the average unsuspecting person...


----------



## TorchBoy (Feb 27, 2008)

maxa beam said:


> It'd be many, many times larger than 3 km. And be very faint. Atmospheric reflection would reflect 90% of the power, the rest would disperse.
> 
> You'd need a very powerfull laser, indeed.


Not many times larger, but I was out a bit. 4 miles is 6.4km, or a tad over twice what I said. http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html


> The reflectors are too small to be seen from Earth, so even when the beam is precisely aligned in the telescope, actually hitting a lunar retroreflector array is technically challenging. At the Moon's surface the beam is roughly four miles wide. Scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime two miles away.
> 
> Once the laser beam hits a reflector, scientists at the ranging observatories use extremely sensitive filtering and amplification equipment to detect the return signal, which is far too weak to be seen with the human eye. Even under good atmospheric viewing conditions, only one photon is received every few seconds.


Is one photon every few seconds really "seeable"? Plausible.


----------

