I've enjoyed their idiom tests in the past for the sheer silliness of testing whether a rolling stone gathered moss or you could shoot fish in a barrel. This one was less effective, though. I think they're running out of good ideas.
Polishing, uhh, dung: Eww. Not much I care to say about this one. The results were surprising, though. It actually worked. I'm just glad I didn't have to do it. My hands would never feel clean again.
In the dispute between Adam and Jamie, I think Adam was right about the intent behind the saying. Although maybe Jamie had a point, in that the goal is just to make something bad look good, by whatever means.
The Japanese dirt-polishing technique was fascinating, but not too surprising when you think about it. It's kind of like unbaked ceramics.
Hit the ground running: I guess I can understand the actual running results. With the drop from a static start, you have a reference for the environment around you so you can evaluate where the ground is. And moving your legs first would at least loosen your muscles, like a warmup. As for the moving start, that's more disorienting so you're more likely to stumble.
On the bike, I was expecting it to fail after I thought about it a bit, but for the wrong reason. I was thinking of the Knight Rider drive-into-a-truck myth, where they were concerned that the car would shoot forward once it hit the ramp but it didn't because it still had its inertia. I figured the bike's inertia would be the same regardless of whether the wheel was spinning or not, so it would take as much time to accelerate either way. I didn't consider that the friction would be the decisive factor. I guess that when the tire hits, it deforms enough that a lot of it is in contact with the ground, totally locking it up with friction. I wonder, how do stunt cyclists deal with that, though? Maybe by landing with the front wheel first?
Now, the car test was where my expectation was borne out. The acceleration time was almost identical, since either way you still need to overcome the same amount of momentum. The "hit the ground" time was a little longer, though, because there was an initial skid as the tires were still coming down and bouncing and struggling for traction. So kind of the opposite of the friction effect with the bike, interestingly enough.
End with a bang: Totally pointless. You can't prove or disprove a matter of opinion. Besides, half the episodes of this series confirm that the show's producers believe it's better to end with a bang. This was just the latest excuse for gratuitous pyrotechnics. The thermite demonstration was pretty interesting, though.
Polishing, uhh, dung: Eww. Not much I care to say about this one. The results were surprising, though. It actually worked. I'm just glad I didn't have to do it. My hands would never feel clean again.
In the dispute between Adam and Jamie, I think Adam was right about the intent behind the saying. Although maybe Jamie had a point, in that the goal is just to make something bad look good, by whatever means.
The Japanese dirt-polishing technique was fascinating, but not too surprising when you think about it. It's kind of like unbaked ceramics.
Hit the ground running: I guess I can understand the actual running results. With the drop from a static start, you have a reference for the environment around you so you can evaluate where the ground is. And moving your legs first would at least loosen your muscles, like a warmup. As for the moving start, that's more disorienting so you're more likely to stumble.
On the bike, I was expecting it to fail after I thought about it a bit, but for the wrong reason. I was thinking of the Knight Rider drive-into-a-truck myth, where they were concerned that the car would shoot forward once it hit the ramp but it didn't because it still had its inertia. I figured the bike's inertia would be the same regardless of whether the wheel was spinning or not, so it would take as much time to accelerate either way. I didn't consider that the friction would be the decisive factor. I guess that when the tire hits, it deforms enough that a lot of it is in contact with the ground, totally locking it up with friction. I wonder, how do stunt cyclists deal with that, though? Maybe by landing with the front wheel first?
Now, the car test was where my expectation was borne out. The acceleration time was almost identical, since either way you still need to overcome the same amount of momentum. The "hit the ground" time was a little longer, though, because there was an initial skid as the tires were still coming down and bouncing and struggling for traction. So kind of the opposite of the friction effect with the bike, interestingly enough.
End with a bang: Totally pointless. You can't prove or disprove a matter of opinion. Besides, half the episodes of this series confirm that the show's producers believe it's better to end with a bang. This was just the latest excuse for gratuitous pyrotechnics. The thermite demonstration was pretty interesting, though.
