Probably because it's one of the most spectacular; and they needed something for the "Build Team" to, well, build.

I still wish they could have tested it along parameters closer to what the episode used.

I DVRd the episode and finally got to watch it last night. It was GREAT!!!! I wish that they would do another episode. I do wish that they would have mentioned that the MacGyverisms were NOT meant to be replicated and that the application (or amount) of the ingredients that were used was often skewed to make sure that no one at home could replicate the MacGyverisms and hurt themselves or others.

I just watched the pilot ep online (why CBS?), and noticed that Mac put his sodium bomb next to a cracked wall of poured concrete, rather than a solid cinderblock one - just like Mac to optimize his chances.

And they modified the design of the ultrlight! For shame! But I think the one we saw take off from the cliff in the ep was probably a real one in disguise LOL

banlu

Because CBS own Paramount Studios.

Hey thats a really good point, and something I hadn't considered before.

I know that key ingredients where omitted for safety reasons in the more volatile MacGyverisms, but I had never considered that the quantities of materials used (such as Sodium metal), might also have been purposely altered for the same reason, rather than just straight out exaggeration to fit the story.

I was also wondering whether one could make a case that the wall in the pilot episode had been weakened by the explosion that damaged the lab. Another question I pondered was whether the sodium metal being in powder form would make a difference -- or if it's even plausible that the lab would have it in powder form in the first place.

That's right...I forgot about the damage to the wall. In the Mythbusters episode, they built a solid wall. Maybe I should watch the MacGyver pilot again (as if I need an excuse).

well the hole was actually under the crack.. so I don't think that was a contributing factor at all and in any case, remember they tried it again with 500 grams of much more reactive Potassium and still only got a firecracker out of it.

The simple fact is that the explosion was greatly exaggerated in the episode.

In real life a capsule full of sodium would struggle to blow a hole in a paper towel. (although it would successfully set fire to said paper towel)

Finally go to watch it via youtube... That was so great! It was neat to see those few minimyths proven. I kind of agree that they should revisit the bamboo ultralight, but I'm not really sure it would make much difference. The cliff they used was too sloped and it really did seem to catch air right before it hit the slope. It's possible that the slope cut the thing short and that it would have been able to go further, but I still doubt it would have been enough. If you watch the clip from the show, Mac's contraption does dip significantly as if goes off the cliff, but has enough speed to travel semi-horizontally and clear the cliffside...The Mythbusters ultralight pretty much just nose-dived. I think even if they had the right kind of cliff it probably wouldn't have the speed to get horizontal.

the first half of the myth was busted for sure though.. it took them 3 days to build it... MacGyver did it in 4 hours.

Another thing I found interesting was how Adam was just coming up with the actual MacGyverisms in the contest part of the show before the guys could even tell him what he was suppose to be testing. He's either a natural MacGyver or he's a big fan of the show.

... or maybe both

Potassium isn't very reactive with water. If I was MacGyver, I would choose Rubidium or Cesium from the alkali metals. Take a look at this short video from Brainiac show: http://www.myeeos.com/Videos/eCk0lYB_8c0.
2 grams of Rubidium blow the whole bath into pieces, Cesium is even stronger.

yeah that would have done the trick

He didn't actually use potassium.. he used sodium metal.. which is even less reactive than Potassium.

They may have chosen Sodium metal because it's more commonly found in labs than Rubidium or Cesium.

In any case the science behind the MacGyverism was good. They just exaggerated it a lot

I thought the show was great, and hilarious, too. I totally agree the ultra light needed to be revisited. I believe if it hadn't hit the side of the wall, it would have flown.
I was laughing a lot throughout the show. I thought they were funny and they portrayed MacGyver as their hero, which was nice. But what was up with the moustache? Mac never had one. Hmm???
Very good show. I Tivo'd it so I can watch it again.

He did in the western episodes.

But Jamie asked the same question right at the start, and Adam replied it made him look a bit like Jamie, so it was just Adam poking some fun at Jamie's Walrus mustache.

Any idea if this will be reaired anytime soon? I am interested in watching it a second time.

No it's already been re-aired several times this week, but it's not listed in the schedule for any further airings anytime before the end of March.

But it is on youtube and I'm hoping to get some clips in our media section as well some time in the near furture.

Actually, they didn't show it on Saturday the 23rd like it was scheduled!

I turned on the TV at 9pm, and they were showing something else, dang it!

banlu

well thats just not right.

Anyway, as I said, it's on youtube, and hopefully we'll have highlight clips here soon.

I especially liked how the Mythbusters were obviously quite sincere fans of Mac -- they liked the series and were really enjoying working with the ideas from it, even the ones that didn't work out!

It doesn't suprise me that the sodium metal myth was busted. You'd need a pile of the stuff to create an explosion. Most metals are water reactive and usually release a lot of heat. Most of them will burn before they explode.

The clips I have seen are very cool, though, and I would have enjoyed watching the entire show the night it aired.

Well, luckily since MacGyver is a fictional show, you can always argue that in MacGyver's world it is realistic for all his MacGyverisms to work.

But in the real world, the producers did have to take into consideration the practicality of shooting something for TV and especially making sure that no one could possible injure themselves by attempting to recreate any of the more dangerous ones. And that's definitely very important and I'm glad they did that. But I think even if some stuff was exaggerated, the point is that you can still appreciate the principle at work there.

And even though they certainly were a big drawing for me as a child for watching the show, MacGyver is so much more than just way cool MacGyverisms.

That doesn't hold water: that's selective physics, which is pseudoscience. MacGyver is set in the real world, and the laws of physics are expected to behave consistently as far as science goes. The laws of storytelling are something else!

And the harsh laws of Hollywood supercede everything . . .

Agreed.

Most of the MacGyverisms are based on sound science, especially the chemistry and physics components. I know that the producers deliberately altered some of them so that people attempting to recreate them wouldn't hurt themselves or others.

For example: the MacGyverism where Mac uses diesel oil and fertilizer rolled into a newspaper tube to make hand lobbed bombs is based on a a basic chemical reaction. In the proper ratio, diesel oil and ammonium nitrate fertilizer pellets will form an explosive mixture. It is used frequently by terrorists, with great effect. The amount of material and the way Mac is shown mixing them however won't yield the explosive result.

Somne of the Macgyverisms, especially in season 7, unfortunately, applied the harsh laws of Hollywood over those os basic sound scientific theory.

can we use that argument then to explain this macgyverism?

Did the producers deliberately use sodium metal in small quantities because they knew it wouldn't produce a harmful explosion if people where to reproduce it?

Very likely. Considering how easy it is to get chemicals.

Also, its probably very bad for business if the viewing audience blows up themselves or their homes.

I think that's a very sound argument, and probably correct -- especially given the show's stated policies.

Kinda ruins their potential as repeat customers -- or as long-term fans!

It doesn't take a lot of sodium to create fires and explosions when mixed with water. But it does take more than what could be contained in a cold capsule. In theory, this Macism will work. In practice, the way it was done on the show, it will not.

Yeah, for many of us, if we had tried recreating this at home, if the resulting explosion didn't kill us; our parents would have.

Actually I wonder if they have taken that into account?

It's one point where the whole testing the MacGyverism falls apart. You can't test somethign that was deliberately mis-represented for safety purposes.

*edit*

I've just been looking on the mythbusters forum, and it seems several people there are also thinking that this may have been a deliberate mis-representation for safety.

So it will be interesting to see if they revisit this or any other explosive MacGyverism in the future.

I really don't think they can fairly test any MacGyverism which has been altered for safety.

I think you're probably right there, Rock. That's really something that should be taken into account, and pointed out, when testing is done. But it has to be considered that the Mythbusters take the "myth" as presented...so in the case of MacGyver, every -ism that was shown skewed because of the potential danger in replicating it would be busted.

Actually, I think MacGyver has a point. Sure it's based in reality, but have you ever watched a show based in reality and thought, 100% of the time that it could happen? There's always some element of suspending belief because there's always something that doesn't quite jive with reality, and I think most people who can separate reality from fiction expect that. I'm slowly teaching myself this as I write more and more...I like things to be as realistic as possible, but some sacrifice is ok, because it's fiction. I think that's why I stalled so hard on the fic I started posting here...I was obsessing about everything being "real" and getting stuck in research (for a fanfic! LOL). Now I want to revisit the thing, asking myself where I can ask the reader to suspend belief.