Running Head: BUBBLE TROUBLE

Bubble Trouble

Justin McEntire

Ivy Tech Community College

BUBBLE TROUBLE 2

In a Mythbusters episode titled Bubble Trouble (4/27/2011) the crew decides to test a pair of

myths. The first myth states that a man used to split trees with a stick of dynamite attached to an

arrow. The episodes namesake myth deals with the idea that you cannot swim in bubbling water.

In both cases the two teams attempting to validate the myths presented used the scientific

method brilliantly. With the dynamite arrow myth the group starts with the hypothesis that using

an arrow with dynamite attached will split a tree. They reduced variables by using a common

pine tree of a decent size. The idea was that pine trees are not particularly hard, they have a spiral

inner ring, and it is likely that the person who started the myth would have been referring to a

pine given its abundance. When the myth went straight towards testing the tree lost little more

than bark. The team then returned to hypothesis, wherein they decided to use more explosives to

verify that the myth was false. Like the prior test, the tree had little more than bark missing, and

it certainly was not split from root to tip. Given how there was not much that the team could do

to validate the myth, they took their results and altered their hypothesis again. Upon the third

hypothesis they decided to find what explosive would cause a tree to split. From there they used

high explosive dynamite and slower burn explosives, only to find the trees splintering instead of

splitting. The end result was the verification that no, a person cannot split a tree with typical

explosive usage; therefor, the myth was busted.

Likewise, the other team used the scientific method to test the bubbling water test. They first

started by testing whether or not bubbling water had less density than still water, as per the myths

subtext. The result was that no, bubbling water did not alter either buoyancy or density within a

small scale test. That said, the team applied the same test on a larger scale to ensure there were
BUBBLE TROUBLE 3

not any variables skewing the results. With the same hypothesis in place they found that a person

in a bubbling pool will be pushed away from the source of the bubbling water. Since the test

participant was pushed towards the edge of the small pool the team chose to test the same myth

on a much larger scale, thus making the edges of the pool irrelevant. Upon the full scale test they

discovered that yes, it was impossible to swim if there were too many bubbles, but not because

of density or buoyancy. The findings were that if there was too much pressure from a high

amount of bubbles a person would be pushed away from the source of the bubbles. In the end the

team called this myth plausible.

These two tests dealt primarily with the concepts of buoyancy, burn rate, and pressure. My

knowledge of these concepts overlapped with the myths presented in this episode. In particular,

pressure and buoyancy are both important concepts in the scuba diving world, and burn rate is

important when dealing with firearms. Pressure deals with the amount of weight per square

segment is applied to any given thing, while buoyancy relates to an items tendency to stay afloat.

In both regards it is important for a diver to understand these concepts, because a diver who

swims to the surface too quickly will end up with oxygen bubbles in the blood due to pressure

changes. On the other hand, burn rate is important to someone who uses firearms, since shooting

ammunition with too high of a burn rate will likely cause a riffle barrel explosion. With those

three concepts in mind, the tests were directly related to my understanding of pressure, burn rate,

and buoyancy. I fully understand that pressure will just as easily push a man from the source of

bubbles, or cause a tree to shatter into pieces. Likewise, I also understand that a fluids

consistency can alter a persons buoyancy.

This episode did leave me with a couple of curiosities; why was the pools density unchanged

by the bubbles, and what methods were actually used for tree felling, and why.
BUBBLE TROUBLE 4

According to every source I could find regarding air bubbles and buoyancy, something was

amiss with the Mythbusters air bubble tests. For example, New Science published an article

about how Archimedes stated that density of a fluid must be higher than an object in order for the

object to float (Marchant, 2001). That said, enough bubbles will alter a fluids density and will

cause an item to sink. Popular Science seems to agree with this concept as well (Weiner, 2008). It

could be that the participant was able to exude enough force to compensate with the less dense

water, or the water surrounding the bubbles could have dissipated the change in pressure.

Regardless, technically the myth was that a person could swim in bubbling water, not that they

could float.

With regards to tree removal, I found an article presented by the Department of Agriculture.

They recommend using dynamite to remove trees that are in a dangerous position (Beckley,

2008). The idea is that the distance provided by the blasting wire will prevent workers from

becoming injured in fall zone. The other benefit is that the environment appears to be more

natural if the tree is explosively toppled compared to sawn down. The methods presented looked

a lot like some of the tests performed by the Mythbusters. The department recommends using

external explosives to force the tree to fall a certain direction, and internal explosives to reduce

noise and explosives. For example, if a dangerous tree was near a shelter house shaped charges

would be preferable to internal charges. On the other hand, in the middle of the wilderness it

would be better to just let the tree fall whichever way it chooses. These two methods look like

the two tests the Mythbusters performed. In the first test they used external charges to little avail.

This makes sense given how they would not have the full effect of the blast when the dynamite

exploded. Almost all of the energy was forced away from the tree, and the rest was absorbed into
BUBBLE TROUBLE 5

the bark. In the other test the team used cracks to plant the dynamite, and the result was a

shattered tree.

In short, the explosive arrow myth was disproved through the scientific process, but the

bubble test may have been voided due to external variables. Regardless, the attempt to properly

apply science to hypothesis was there, and all the steps were followed accordingly.
BUBBLE TROUBLE 6

References

Beckley, B. (2008). Felling hazard trees with explosives. Missoula, MT: Department of

Agriculture.

Hulu. (2011, April 27). Bubble trouble [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.hulu.com/watch/784245

Marchant, J. (2001, September 26). Bubbling seas can sink ships. New Scientist. Retrieved from

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1350-bubbling-seas-can-sink-ships/

Weiner, A. (2008, October 22). Fluid density and you. Popular Science. Retrieved from

http://www.popsci.com/breakdown/article/2008-10/fluid-density-and-you