All language subtitles for Mythbusters.S09E12.Paper.Armor.1080p.AMZN.WEBRip.DD2.0.x264-CasStudio_track3_[eng]

Please don't try anything
you're about to see at home.

We're what you call experts.

Narrator: On this episode
of "mythbusters"...

Oh!
Nice.

Adam and Jamie
have a "data" with destiny.

I am totally psyched
about numbers!

They're testing the myth

that during
an underwater explosion...

Boom.

Lying prone on the surface

will increase your chances of
survival.

Whoa!
Look how high that went!

Then...
Cue the gong.

[ Gong resonates ]

Narrator: Kari, Grant, and Tory
tackle an ancient armor saga.

[ Grunts ]

Ooh.
I felt that one.

Is the farfetched
theory that paper armor...

What? You couldn't find me
a giant pair of scissors

to run with?

Protects as well as steel...

Now, that is one
dangerous-looking machine.

Fact or Pulp Fiction?

[ Groans ]

Who are the mythbusters?

Adam savage.
Come on! Let's go!

Here comes chaos.

And Jamie hyneman.

Relax.
This won't hurt a bit.

Between them, more than 30 years
of special-effects experience.

Joining them...

Kari Byron...

This should be fun.

Tory belleci...

[ Laughing ] We survived!

And Grant imahara.

Start the car!

They don't just tell the myths.

They put them to the test.

Captions by vitac...
www.Vitac.Com

captions paid for by
discovery communications

check this out.

Navy divers who find themselves
in the water

when an explosion,
like a depth charge

or something, is supposed to
go off underwater,

are instructed specifically

that the safest position
for them to be in,

in the case of
an underwater explosion

is flat on their back
on the surface

and that that's significantly
safer

even than treading water
in an upright position.

Hmm.
That's interesting.

You wouldn't think there'd be
any difference at all.

You wouldn't.

And that's why i
think it's something
that we should test.

I'm up for it.

Navy seals... and walruses...

Are advised that if in danger
of a depth-charged disaster,

their best chance of survival
is to float on the surface

rather than treading water
or diving down.

But would it really make
a difference?

Adam, Jamie, and the bomb squad
are prime to find out.

Ultimately, of course,

i foresee a large-scale
quarry lake,

big explosions,
very cool high-speed shots.

But where do we begin?

Well, let's say we start
with some underwater
shock-wave testing

here in the shop and see
if we can collect some data,

see if there are any problems,

see if there's anything
to the myth.

Sure.
This shouldn't be that hard.

Okay.

We're gonna need three things...
A tank full of water,

an explosion,

and a means of measuring
the shock wave.

Narrator:
It sounds deceptively simple,

but setting off and measuring
underwater explosions

in the shop

is anything but simple.

What are you thinking?

I'm thinking this requires
a brainstorming sequence...

Got a long, narrow tube.

With an inevitable
tense discussion...

It would fail catastrophically.

Obligatory technical jargon...

15 p.S.I.

Equidistant from the sensors.

Blast pressure.

Seven p.S.I..

That could work.

And after a final
audio crossfade or two...

And we create our shock wave.

So I'm just going to draw it.

And we got sensors.

There's a resolute conclusion
signaling a solution.

I think that seems like a plan.

I think so.

This here is our tank...
15 feet tall.

It's gonna hold 1,300 pounds
of water.

Inside that tank,

we will place four
shock sensors.

I will detonate a pistol
dead center in the tank.

That pistol will generate
a shock wave

that will travel up and down
through the tank.

If depth plays no role

in the propagation
of a shock wave underwater,

we should see
an identical reading

between sensors "b" and "c"

because they are each
the same distance from

the source of the shock wave.

If depth does play
a significant factor

in the force
of a shock wave underwater,

then we should see a difference

in the force
measured by these two sensors,

and that's where this story gets
really interesting.

Narrator: But it gets
interesting before that,

because Jamie has
an ingenious plan of a tank.

We're gonna need a very tall,
narrow tank for this test.

Now, we built
one of these before

for firing bullets into water.

But let's just say there was
a serious problem with that one.

Narrator: Ah-ha.

Water is heavy,

and keeping it contained
is a tricky task.

[ Shouts ]

Oh, criminy.

Jamie:
Now, with that in mind,

I've come up with
an entirely new way

of building a tank
that we've never tried before.

It uses very thick vinyl.

Well, that ought to do it.

You're off.

Another six inches?
It's in.

Adam:
In a few minutes,

we're about to fill that tube
with 1,300 pounds of water.

Will it hold?

I can't detect any leaks.

I hope so.

Narrator:
So does Jamie,

because nothing scares
the hyneman more

than a mess in potentia.

It's terrifying.

Quit yanking on it.

With the tank holding,
they're about to tempt fate

by introducing
the explosive ingredient.

The role of our shock producer
in the small-scale test

will be played by this...
A .357 Magnum pistol,

to which I'm going to make
some modifications

so we can fire it remotely
and underwater.

Okay, kari,
what do you got for us?

I've got a historical myth,
and i love this one.

Now, in ancient times,
even up to the 1800s,

some armies in China

actually made armor
out of paper.

Tory: Paper armor?
That is cool.

Paper's the last thing you would
think of to make armor.

I like this one.

And the cool thing is,

the paper was supposed to
perform as well as steel.

Paper armor performing
as well as steel armor?

I'd like to see that.

That's why i want to test it.

Narrator: Throughout history,

material science has been
at the cutting edge

of advancements in armor.

But is it really possible

that the ancient Chinese
manufactured paper armor

capable of performing as well

as its contemporary
steel equivalent?

To find out, kari, Grant,
and Tory

are arming themselves with
the facts and then the armor.

Well, first up,
I'd like to do some research,

talk to an expert,

find out how the paper armor
was possibly made

and what the steel counterpart
would be.

Yeah. I mean,
when we think of steel,

we think of medieval armor
like this.

But Chinese steel armor
of the period

may not have been
like this at all.

So, it sounds like
we're gonna need

to get some steel armor
of the period

and make ourselves
some paper armor.

Then we'll run them through
some tests

and see how the paper
compares to the steel.

I'm looking forward to this.

For our paper-armor myth,
I've come up to the napa valley

so that i can talk
to Greg Martin.

Now, he's an antique arms
and armor expert.

Hopefully he'll have
a little insight for me.

Narrator: And his first
interesting insight

is that the existence
of paper armor

is no myth at all.

Historically, paper armor
is traced back

to the tang dynasty
in 600 b.C.

And, of course, the Chinese

were very big developers
of paper.

So it would stand to reason

that paper armor
would develop there.

Kari: So, how would paper armor
likely have been constructed?

By using what we call
lamellar paper

was laminated together
into squares

and then attached piece by piece

and then would cover
the entire body.

Narrator:
So, lamellar paper armor

really was used
in ancient China.

There are records

of multiple manufacturing
methods and designs.

But the myth is

that it was as effective
as the steel armor of its day...

An outrageous claim.

And the team is skeptical,

but there is some cause
for hope.

Now, we know
from historical sources

that they used a mulberry paper.

Look at this.
You can see the fibers.

This is strong stuff.

What they would do is,

they would stack layers of it
together,

and that was enough
to stop arrows.

Now, one source told us

that they would take
these layers of paper

and laminate it with resin
or some kind of shellac

or even glue.

Another source says

that they would cover it
with a cotton cloth

and sew around the edges.

What we're going to do is, we're
gonna take all those techniques,

find out which works best.

Once we have that,

then we'll be able
to put that up against steel

and see which one does better.

And to test our armor pieces,
we're going to use this.

Ow.

This is a sharpened tip

on the end
of a pneumatic cylinder.

Here we have a chunk
of ballistics material.

Put each sample underneath,

and then we'll fire the cylinder
like this...

And see how each sample performs
as a result of the puncture.

And the best one will go on
to make our final armor pieces.

Kari: This is folded paper
with cotton.

Narrator: So, the goal is
to compare the range

of historically accurate
manufacturing methods.

One.

Wow, look at that.
It actually stopped it.

Narrator:
And decide which

will give the steel
the best run for its money.

Each paper piece, regardless of
its construction method,

is one-half-inch thick,

a dimension discovered
in the research.

Lacquer made it more brittle,

and it actually went
all the way through.

Narrator: And although
the shellac, an organic resin,

may double up
as an effective weapon...

[ Both laugh ]

Kari:
That actually stuck!

Narrator:
The result that emerges

is that hardened squares
like lacquer

lack the penetrative protection
of the winning sample.

Okay. And folded paper.

Whoa!

Oh, my god.
Look at how well that worked.

This absolutely works the best.

Simplicity.

Now that we've found
our winning paper construction,

which is simply folded-up paper,

it's time to put it up
against steel.

So, we are gonna be putting
both of these materials

against common weapons
of the time.

We're gonna be doing
blunt force,

some kind of a club or a mace,

a sword, and then finally,
an arrow

and see which one
performs the best.

Narrator: Later,
in-depth-charge disaster.

Narrator: Adam and Jamie have
a "data" with destiny.

But first...

Now, that is one
dangerous-looking machine.

It's steel, paper, sword.

Narrator:
Our trio of mythbusters

have a martial mystery
from oriental history.

Supposedly, as a material
for making armor,

paper matches steel.

Hah!

So far, the team has discovered

that of all
the historically recorded

manufacturing techniques,

simple folded squares
provide the most protection.

This absolutely works the best.

Narrator:
But they're still skeptical

of paper's ability
to match steel.

So, before they go all out

and build a full suit
of paper armor,

paper will have to prove itself

in an, uh, authentic setting.

Greetings, friends.

Though this looks like

an entirely authentic
tang dynasty household,

it is, in fact,
the best reproduction

we could come up with
for under $10.

Cue the gong.

[ Gong resonates ]

Narrator: And here's how
this proof of concept will work.

Paper will go up against steel
in a series of weapons tests.

And if the damage
to a Clay block beneath

is reasonably comparable,

only then will they move on
to a full-scale testing

with full suits of armor.

Now, the way we're choosing
our thickness of armor is,

we have done some research,

and lamellar armor was about
1/32 of an inch of steel.

As far as paper armor goes,

we found out that it was about
a half-inch thick.

And the half-inch thick equals
about 28 sheets of the paper.

Narrator:
To get things rolling,

Grant wheels out a familiar
robotic swinger.

Calibrated to
human swinging speeds...

That's 125 miles per hour

for the data divas out there...

She's ready
for weapon number one.

Grant: So, for our
blunt-force-trauma test,

we're gonna use this.

This is a reproduction
of an ancient Chinese weapon

called a chúi.
[ Chewbacca growl sounds ]

That's gonna do some damage,
isn't it?

Hopefully.

Narrator: First up
for a taste of the mace

is the steel control,

the material the mythical
paper armor has to match.

Trauma test in three, two, one.

Grant: Wow.
That did really well.

Narrator: Yep, the Clay
indentation is slight

and shallow.

But now for
the all-important comparison.

Grant: All right.

Let's see how paper armor
can do.

Okay.
This is the trauma test.

Oh.
That did not look good.

That looks like it would hurt.

Narrator: And a look at
the side-by-side impressions

only enforces the impression

that this myth belongs
in the waste-paper bin.

I'd rather be wearing steel
at this point.

Right.

I think the steel wins
in this situation.

Narrator: But there are
two more chances

to find out if paper
cuts it as armor.

I think i just cut my eyebrow.

First, the sword.

Now, that is one
dangerous-looking machine.

And just for reference,
let's first see

what the sword does
to the unprotected Clay.

Ouch.

[ Laughs ]

All right.

So, it looks like it went in
about an inch.

Narrator: Now for the cold,
hard steel.

In three, two, one.

Oh! [ Laughs ]

Tory: All right.

Do you see here,
the sword hit the steel armor,

and it put a dent in the Clay,

but it didn't actually
cut through,

wounding the person.

So, now what we're gonna do

is we're gonna switch out
the steel armor

for the paper armor

and see what kind of damage
it does on the Clay.

Ooh.

Wow.

Narrator: The result
is astonishing.

The damage is minimal.

It's similar to the steel
at a vast improvement

on the inch-deep slice

experienced by
the unprotected Clay.

It only cut, like.
Maybe two or three layers.

Tory:
That is crazy.

[ Laughs ]

Paper for armor?

It could work.

I'm impressed.
It's looking great.

Narrator:
Which brings us

to the third and final
weapons test... the arrow.

Grant: Oh!

Kari:
Oh, it bounced back.

Let's see how far it went in.

That's it.
That's it.

That is less than
a quarter of an inch.

Narrator: So, paper has
one final chance

to prove its mettle
against the metal.

In three, two, one.

Narrator: And hold on to
your skeptic's hat,

because despite
the arrow's penetration

into the paper,

the Clay beneath survived better
than it did against the steel.

Kari: Huh.

Wow. Look at that.

Well, i think the arrow went
deeper on the steel armor.

Narrator: Yep.
It's concept proven.

The paper more or less matched
the metal.

And this myth can move on.

To best avoid injury from
an underwater depth charge,

would it really
make a difference

lying supine on the surface?

Intent on investigating,

Adam and Jamie will set off
an underwater shock wave

and measure it
at various depths.

This is my finished
shock wave-producing,

remote-firing pistol.

It will fire only blank rounds

because i have put
a little shock-wave disperser in

so that it disperses
the shock wave

both exactly up
and exactly down.

I put a blank round in it,
cock it,

and then from above the water,

i can fire it,

generating the shock wave
we need for instrumentation.

Narrator:
To measure the shock wave

from the handgun blank

is the final item on
Jamie's list...

Four pressure sensors
held in place by magnets.

Here we go.

Hey! It worked!

So, what's the water tube
gonna tell us after this test?

Are we gonna get a much higher
blast pressure here than here?

It's an interesting question

because the pressure here

is already at 4.2 pounds
per square inch.

Up here, it's only two pounds
per square inch.

And that's just from
the weight of the water.

It feels like a bank heist.

So, that combined with
the explosion, i think,

is gonna inherently
give us a higher blast
pressure down there.

But will that equate to death
while treading water

while life while lying flat
on your back?

I don't think so.

Okay, we're hot.

Jamie: The question we're trying
to answer here

is whether there's some feature
to do with depth underwater

and the associated pressures.

The greater the depth,
the more intense the shock wave.

That is perfect.

The shallower the depth,

the less intense the shock wave
and the safer you'll be.

What do i think?

I don't think there's gonna be
much of a difference.

Narrator: So, both mythbusters
are skeptical,

but science is
an evidence-based discipline.

This is depth-charge disaster...
Small-scale test.

Hopefully not making me too wet.

In three, two, one.

[ Gunshot ]

Nice.

Narrator: Well, the sensors
did register a result,

and the tank
didn't spring a leak,

but a close look reveals
the numbers aren't ideal.

So, what did we get?

Well, it's looking
awfully noisy,

but we're getting
some interesting numbers.

Jamie: Unfortunately,
the close proximity

of the walls of the tank
to the explosion

is affecting
those pressure waves

and creating noise,

which is obscuring
the measurements

that we're looking for.

Narrator: That noise,
the reflected shock waves

bouncing around
in the narrow tank...

Is it still noisy?

Means the peak pressure wave
for each individual sensor

is difficult to determine.

Let's run it again.

But three bangs later,

and they have enough data points
for a pattern to emerge.

Adam:
All right, kids.

Put down your juice boxes
and pay attention.

It's time for the moment
you've been waiting for.

It's time to interpret
the numbers.

Remember that if there was
anything to this story at all,

if depth did play a factor

in increasing the force
of a shock wave,

we should see
that the deeper sensors

would give us a higher reading
than the shallower sensors

at the same distance.

And that is what we're seeing.

In every one of our tests,

the sensor-three readings
are higher

than the sensor-two readings.

The sensor-four readings
are higher

than the sensor-one readings.

That tells me at least
that in small scale,

there might just be something
to this story.

So, paper armor has potential.

I think it might be time
for us to go full scale.

Let's make armor out of paper

and put it up against steel
in a series of challenges.

I love it. We'll put
each of the armor on

and then run through
a series of tests.

Maybe we'll test speed,
agility, and endurance.

And we'll have to have
some kind of ultimate battle

between the two suits.

Not wearing them, of course.

Pick a number.

Narrator: So, cue the full-scale
monumental mission...

You're a dork.

Narrator: To make
a full suit of paper armor...

Only 850 to go.

Narrator:
And the less taxing task

of having a real steel one
delivered.

Grant: So, to put our
paper armor to the test,

we're going to pit it against
a metal suit of armor

from the same period.

Now, because this is hard
to make,

we ordered it from
a modern armory company

in the Ukraine.

And it's battle ready.

Hah! Who wants some?

I also do parties.

Narrator:
Uh, meanwhile,

Tory gets busy pulling
the paper-armor design together,

a design based on
these ancient drawings

and Grant's period-accurate
steel replica.

Now, if you look at
the steel armor,

the scales have holes
drilled into them,

and they're tied together
with leather straps.

Plus, they are overlapping.

That way there are no gaps
in the armor.

I think we need to do
the exact same thing...

Take our paper scales,
drill some holes into them,

overlap them, and tie them
together with cotton cord.

Narrator:
Producing this season's hot,
new paper armor is a huge job.

So the mythbusters' sweatshop
is open for business.

And after a week's hard work,

hundreds of lamellar plates
have been sewn together

to form a full suit of armor

that, after some minor
tailoring,

will be ready to go into battle.

[ As Tim gunn]
Oh, kari, i just don't know
about this paper motif.

I don't know if the judges
are really gonna like it or not.

Oh, well. Make it work.

Narrator: The question is,
will it work as well as steel?

To find out,

the team is signing up
for basic battle training.

Aah!
Hang tough!

Now that we have
our full suits of armor made,

it's time to put them
to the test.

We're gonna put our suits
head to head

in the types of things
that you would find in battle...

Namely speed, agility..

[ Laughs ]
And endurance.

[ Crack ]

Oh, my back.

Narrator: First event
in the armor Olympics

is the 50-yard sprint
with sword.

What? You couldn't find me
a giant pair of scissors

to run with?

Well, you will be wearing
a suit of armor,

this season's must-have
safety gear.

Here on "mythbusters,"
we are making science...

Hah!

Cool?

Hah!

So, I'm about to take
my speed run in the paper armor.

All right. This is sprinting
in paper armor.

Are you ready?

And i have to say, i do think
that the paper armor

is gonna encumber me
a little bit

just because I've got the armor

right down here
where my legs are.

Here we go.

On your mark, get set...

We'll see how i do.

[ Gunshot ]

Aah!

[ Beep ]

Narrator: So, eight seconds
is the benchmark.

And although the paper
is undoubtedly bulkier,

the steel is twice as heavy.

Meanwhile, Tory,

looking for revenge
for past transgressions...

Ooh!

Narrator: Fails to dent
Grant's defenses.

You call that a kick?

Let's do this.

Now, to make sure that Grant
is testing these armors fairly,

we're gonna let him rest
in between tests,

so that way he has full energy
for each of the runs.

Kind of reminds me
of "raiders of the lost ark."

[ Gunshot ]

[ Screams ]

On your marks, get set...

[ Gunshot ]

Grant: I have to say,
I'm really surprised

at how little a difference
there is

between the paper
and the steel armor.

I can't believe there's only
a second difference.

Narrator: Yep, the bulkier,
more restrictive paper armor

performed fractionally better.

But with so little in it,

conclusions can't be drawn
just yet.

Cue test two.

Tory: Now, for the endurance
part of this test,

i will be running a mile
through these hills

and then ending up
on that side of the moat

at which point I'll try to jump
up onto the rope...

[ Groans ]

and cross over.

Narrator:
So, that's the course.

Yes!
Go!

Narrator: Now for the time trial
in paper.

I don't know if I'm
gonna have the energy to
fight when i get there.

Narrator:
With the armor weighing in
at close to 30 pounds,

it's tough going.

Tory: Now, the running wasn't
so bad in the paper armor.

I mean, it is awkward.
You have all this bulk on you.

I even tore part of the paper.

But climbing over the rope...

I'm getting too old for this.

I thought i had it.

But about midway there,

my legs fell off the rope.

Once i lost my legs...

Kari: Can you pull yourself
back up?

Oh!

I knew that was it,
i was going in.

Grant: [ Laughs ]

Oh [Bleep]

[ Laughs ]

Narrator: Bleep, indeed,

because paper and water
don't necessarily mix.

But luckily, it has a chance
to dry out overnight.

Whether it will retain
its structural integrity

for the test to come
is another matter.

And speaking of tests to come,

Tory's time to beat tomorrow
while wearing steel

is just short of 12 minutes.

Boom.

Coming up on "mythbusters,"

we replace this cardboard boom
with the real McCoy.

Please don't try what you're
about to see at home.

We're what you call experts.

Yeah!

Whoo!

So, where do we stand?

Well, our data's a little noisy,

but it does seem to be
supporting

the central tenet of this myth,

which is that depth
does seem to be a factor

in increasing
shock wave strength.

Yeah, but the data's
just too noisy.

I don't trust it.

I think we need to go
full scale.

To a quarry lake?

Could be.
Done.

Oh, look at you.

Aren't you Mr. television?

Come on.
Let's get to work.

[ Laughs ]

Jamie:
To test this story,

we're gonna set off
a series of explosions

15 feet underwater
and measure them with sensors

placed at different depths
nearby.

Ha-ha!

I claim this shore
in the name of "mythbusters"

and science in general.

Now, for all this
to be accurate,

we need to be able to locate
the explosives

and the sensors in a precise
orientation to each other.

Oh!

Oh! Oh!

What'd you let it go for?

[ Chuckles ]

I didn't realize
it would pull so hard.

To pull that off,

we're gonna use a variety
of ropes and anchors.

All right.
That's our sensor-array buoy.

Narrator: The sensor array
with its pcb sensors

at five different depths

will be positioned
at three distances

from the site of the explosion.

And that spread
of 15 data points

is designed to answer
the question

how best to survive
a depth-charge disaster.

And with the lake rigged

with all the relevant anchors
and buoys,

the bomb boys arrive.

Now, whenever we use explosives,
we bring in the professionals,

retired FBI special agent
frank Doyle

and the calaveras county
bomb squad.

Narrator: Sporting a look
available

at www.Shadesanduniforms.Bomb,

these are the guys

that will make sure all three
big booms happen safely.

Meanwhile, Adam,
with his sensitive mast,

is focusing on data acquisition.

This is my sensor mast.

These five devices
are my sensors.

In a few minutes,
I'm gonna join them all together

and put them in the water
to make the largest piece

of data-gathering
scientific equipment

we have yet built and used
in the history of the show.

Narrator:
That's no exaggeration.

Attached to a floating rig

will be five high-tech
pressure transducers

at five different depths

all linked
to a central command center.

Let's talk about
the constants and variables

in this experiment.

As far as the constants go,
we're always gonna be using tnt.

We're gonna be using 10 pounds,
which is five of these things,

and they're gonna be hanging

at 15 feet below the surface
of the water

where the explosion will occur.

Boom.

Also a constant are the sensors.

They're gonna be placed
at five different depths

both above and below water,

and they'll be the same
for every blast.

I feel safer already.

As far as variables,
there's only one,

and that's the distance
of the sensor array

from the explosion.

Now, we're gonna start
at 150 feet away

and move progressively closer,

recording the readings
that we get off the sensors

at each stage.

Hey, look,
that's working beautifully.

Adam: All right.
How are we gonna use our sensors

to represent a body
lying flat on its back

versus a body treading water?

Here's what we're thinking.

We determined that the torso

of a person lying flat
on their back on the surface

has an average depth
of about six inches.

We also determined

that the torso of a person
treading water

has an average depth
of about two feet.

Why the torso?

Well, 'cause that's where
the air pockets are.

Thus, that's where our sensors
are going.

Narrator: Yep, it's a gruesome
but important detail.

Injuries
from underwater explosions

are primarily caused

when shock waves pass through
internal air cavities,

such as the lungs
and intestines,

hence the focus
on the depth of the torso.

10 pounds of underwater fun.

Adam: Well,
everything's prepped.

Yep.
Nothing left but an explosion.

Unfortunately, you're gonna
have to wait for that explosion

for these commercial messages

and perhaps
some other mythbusters.

Narrator: Tory is rested,
ready, and looking not so hot.

You know what?

This thing will protect me from
arrows and getting dates.

Kari: Come on, Tory!
You can do it!

Grant: Go!

Narrator: The question is,
how will Tory's time in steel

compare to the 12-minute
paper run?

And will he even survive?

Kari: You know, there's actually
a little jeopardy to this test

because first of all,
the run is gonna be really hard.

It's gonna be slow.
That thing is heavy.

[ Breathlessly ]
This sucks big time.

Kari: But climbing
this rope over this water,

he's wearing 60 pounds of steel.

He goes into the drink,
that's six feet deep.

Grant:
Pick up the legs.

[ Groans ]

There's no way you're making it
across that rope.

I don't think I'm gonna make it.

Somebody stick a spear in me.

I'm done.

Narrator: The weight of
the steel was the killer.

Tory took an additional
five minutes to complete the run

and then couldn't climb
the rope.

So an army traveling
any kind of distance on foot

would be at a distinct
disadvantage

in the heavier steel,

which means paper wins
that round.

For the final event
in the armor Olympics, agility,

courtesy of some
time-bending editing,

kari will simultaneously tackle
the assault course

in steel and paper.

After drying out overnight,

the paper doesn't appear
to have suffered any damage.

But it's still just as awkward.

It's definitely not as heavy
as the steel armor.

Not a lot of give here.

Okay. Here we go.

In three, two, one.

[ Whistles ]

[ Clock ticking ]

Grant: Go, go, go!
Pick up those feet!

Pick up those feet!

Narrator:
On the first obstacle,

the paper already has
an advantage.

Wow!

Narrator: The weight difference
is clearly the key factor.

Halfway into the course

and paper-clad kari has
already opened up a big lead.

Come on, Byron!

Go, go, go, go, go, go!

And while crawling,

the paper may well be
slowing kari down.

Uh-oh, she's having
a little trouble

with the sand pit.

But the steel almost brings her
to a halt.

[ Grunts ]

The paper's in the way!

Narrator: Which pretty much
sums it up

for the rest
of the agility course.

The paper may be awkward,

but the weight of the steel
seals the deal.

[ Bleep ]
Good work.

Narrator:
So with the first three events
in the armor Olympics complete,

the conclusion is clear.

Paper is outperforming steel.

But now is the real test...
The battle test.

We're going to use weapons
from the period

and see if it can still stand up
to metal.

Adam:
Welcome back.

Let me walk you through
our setup.

Out there in the middle
of the lake tied to a buoy,

we've got 10 pounds of
explosives

floating 15 feet
below the surface.

Oh, it does nicely.
Great.

150 feet away
from our explosives,

we have our sensor mast

with five sensors that detect
shock waves mounted to it,

one above the water

and four below
at the following depths.

One at six inches
below the water...

This simulates someone lying
flat on their back

at the surface of the water,

one two feet under the water...

This simulates our person
who is treading water,

one 15 feet below the surface

at the exact level
of the explosives,

and one deeper
than the explosives

mounted all the way down 25 feet
below the water's surface.

Each explosion will cause
movement in the sensors,

which will be translated
into electrical energy

which will be sent as data
through these wires.

That data will find
its final resting place

here in the equipment
manned by David Harding,

who will crunch our numbers.

After three blasts, we'll end up
with 15 data points

and hopefully the answer
to our question.

Now, normally
we would do something like

set off a blast,
look at the data,

set off another blast,
look at the data.

I think we're good to go, huh?

In this case,
we're not gonna do that.

We're gonna set off
all three of our blasts

in as short a period of time
as possible.

Fire in the hole!

We're doing this
for two reasons...

One, so that the condition
the explosions happen under

is really, really similar.

That makes our data
much more consistent.

Fire in the hole!

The second reason is,

the numbers we're gonna be
looking at

might be quite subtle,

and only by correlating
across all three blasts

are we gonna be sure

that we're telling
a proper story.

Narrator: Here we go for
data acquisition stage one...

Or the first big boom
of the day.

150 feet.

In three, two, one.

Oh, yeah.

Jamie: Wow!

That was a hell of a thud.

I felt that.

That blast was really
unexpectedly cool.

It had three distinct
kind of "whomps" to it.

Like a "whomp! Whomp! Whomp!"

Very cool.

Oh, look at that.
That is just lovely.

And I'm always astonished by
how fast the shock wave moves.

Jamie: Yeah,
it's done and gone

before you actually see
anything happen.

You think this is
all the explosion.

That's way after.
That's the aftermath.

Blast one went off perfectly,

and David says we got good data
from all the sensors.

We are going to withhold
looking at them for now.

We're gonna go right into
blast two from 70 feet.

Okay.
That ought to do it.

Firing in three, two, one.

Oh!

Whoa!
Look how high that went!

Wow!
Jamie: All right.

Well, let's go look
at the high-speed.

Jamie: So, what actually happens
during an underwater explosion?

Well, the explosion creates
a rapidly expanding gas bubble

that pushes water
in front of it,

and that creates
a pressure wave.

It's that pressure wave
that we're looking at

because that is what could
potentially hurt a human.

Narrator:
But the question is,

does that hurt potential
and your very survival

depend on a difference in depth?

This is truly awesome.

It's pretty.

To answer that,

the race is on for numbers

and the third
and final data point.

David says we've got good data
from the first two blasts.

Shall we prep for the last one?

Great.
I'll set it up.

All right.

Want to know why we did
what we did

and didn't do what we didn't do?

Check out the after show.

Log on to discovery. Com/
mythbustersaftershow.

Narrator:
As incredible as it sounds,

paper armor is holding up

against its contemporary
steel equivalent.

But the team has yet to put

paper in front
of the firing squad.

Good work.

Tory: So, now that both steel
and paper armor

have passed through
the agility test,

it is time to see how well
they protect

under a full-scale attack.

What we are gonna do
is set up some mannequins...

Grim up.

This is gonna get dangerous.

Cover those mannequins
with both armors,

and then attack them
on a full scale

with swords, arrows,
and even an ancient gun.

Then we'll be able to find out
once and for all,

is paper armor
as good as steel armor?

Narrator:
But perhaps paper's biggest test

will come not from our trio
of weapon-wielding barbarians

but a second soaking,

this time from the heavens.

Or more accurately,

the condensation
of atmospheric water vapor.

The rain may indeed weaken
the paper and favor the steel,

but it's a real-world problem.

If paper is to prove itself
as protective armor,

it'll have to cope
with a light shower.

Kari:
We're all set.

Now we're gonna start
with the arrow test

and just throw
a barrage of arrows at them.

Remember the hwacha?

Hwacha!

We're gonna hwacha them.

So "hwacha" this.

Narrator: And so,
the barrage begins.

Kari, Tory, and Grant let loose
from 20 feet

at both sets of armor.

And despite being soaked,
softened, and sodden,

the paper protects
our male-model mannequins

as well as the steel does.

Grant: [ Laughs ]

Tory:
Totally worked!

That is phenomenal!

That totally worked!

Tory: The paper armor
is stopping the arrows.

We have not gotten one arrow
to penetrate through.

I mean, it doesn't look as good
as the steel armor,

but the important thing is,
it's working.

Next up, the sword test...

Slicing, dicing, jabbing,
stabbing.

I'm just gonna go
and try to maim those guys.

Kari, just swing wildly.

Narrator: Using both
an edge-slicing stroke...

[ Grunts ]

and a stabbing action...

Ooh, i felt that one.

Kari finds the dial marked
"crazy" and turns it up to 11.

Kari:
I'll tell you one thing.

It's interesting the sounds
you make when you're attacking.

I didn't actually mean
to verbalize all the "aah!"

[ Grunting ]

[ Laughs ]

Working out some issues there?

I'm gonna get myself
a stabbing mannequin for home

'cause it's really a good way
to work out aggression.

Narrator:
And speaking of aggression,

where does that leave
the mannequins and the myth?

It looks like
it's separated through,

but it's stopping

before it even gets
halfway through the tile.

That's great.
Wow.

Narrator: Yes, the paper armor
is working.

On any individual stab, slice,
or arrow shot,

a previously undamaged scale
clearly matches the metal.

But Tory sees
a key armor attribute

where steel trumps paper.

Now, right now, the paper armor
is stopping the sword attacks

just like the steel armor.

However, after multiple attacks,

the paper armor
starts to break down.

It's looking like
the steel armor

is a lot more durable.

Next weapon.

Narrator:
And this is where we surely
draw the line on paper,

because gunpowder
has just been invented.

Grant: Okay, Greg.

So, for our experiment,
we need a firearm

that would have been
of the era of paper armor.

What do you have?

Well, if paper armor was used
up to the 19th century,

let's try something
from the 18th century,

which is this French
flintlock pistol

from about 1750.

Okay. Let's do it.

And first up facing
the flintlock is the metal.

Kari: Whoa!

Tory: Nice shot!

Followed by its fibrous friend.

Now, to assess the results.

Ouch.
Did it go through?

It didn't go through.

Martin: Hey!

The paper armor
stopped the bullet!

Tory: It looks like the steel
stopped the bullet, as well.

Both these armors are effective
against this weapon.

Narrator: With paper once again
in the same league as steel,

this myth requires a further
fast forward in time.

So, now we're gonna try our
19th century gun, the Colt .45,

1,200 foot-pounds
of muzzle energy.

This should put our paper armor
to the test.

This is 19th century gun
versus steel and paper armor.

[ Gun cocks ]

Here we go.
In three, two, one.

Narrator:
And neither stood a chance.

Tory: Well, it's obvious
it punctured the steel,

and it looks like it went
through the paper, as well.

Narrator:
With both sets of armor

succumbing to
the souped-up firepower,

it's time to conclude
this ancient Chinese conundrum.

Okay. The paper armor performed
the same as steel

with every test we've done,

and it failed
in the same place, as well.

Yeah, it just seems

that the guns got too powerful
for the armor.

I've really been wanting
to do this story for a long time

because it seems so outlandish,

but it's super impressive.

Paper armor is actually
a viable option in warfare.

Narrator: Viable, but there is
one notable drawback.

As you can see,

it doesn't have
the same durability

as the steel.

But it still works.

So this one is plausible.

Plausible.

Plausible it is.

Unbelievable.

Adam:
Welcome back.

Jamie and i have been spending
this episode exploring the idea

that if you're in the water
during an underwater explosion,

you are far safer lying flat
on your back at the surface

than you are
even treading water.

We've done
some small-scale experiments.

We've done some large-scale
blasts in this here quarry lake.

We have not yet looked
at our data.

We have one more data point
to get, one more blast,

and then we're going to look

and see
if it actually correlates

to what this myth
purports to say.

Jamie: Okay. 30-feeter.
You good to go?

I'm good to go.
Let's do it.

In three, two, one.

Ooh.

Whoa!

[ Laughs ]

For those of you keeping score,

10 pounds of explosives,
15 feet under the water,

130 feet from where
you're standing on land

feels exactly
like an earthquake.

Jamie: Well, it all comes down
to this.

David's crunching
our last set of numbers,

and that's the final
piece of the puzzle that we need

to answer our question.

Narrator: Remember,
the question is,

during an underwater explosion,

does it really make a difference

lying on your back
compared to treading water?

And the threshold number
to keep in mind is...

What our research has uncovered

is that people exposed
to a pressure of 87 p.S.I.

Or higher have a greater
than 50% chance of dying.

That's our threshold, then.

Anything below 87 p.S.I.
Milliseconds is alive.

Anything above it equals dead.

Narrator: And hot off
the portable printer,

the figures make for
a pair of happy mythbusters.

Remember, Jamie smiles
on the inside.

Dude! Check that out!

[ Laughs ] Nicely done!

Doesn't get any clearer
than that.

It totally does not.

I have to admit, we have rarely
gotten data this lovely.

We had five sensors,

three blasts
for 15 separate data points.

And this whole story comes down
to two data points...

The sensor we had at six inches

versus the sensor we had
at two feet

for the blast from 30 feet away.

That blast would have killed you
if you were treading water,

and you would have lived
through it

if you were lying
flat on your back.

That's the story
we came to tell,

and that's the story
the data tells.

It's lovely.

Narrator: It's a definitive
set of data, all right.

But to really put this myth
to bed,

Jamie reads you the story
called "why?"

Jamie:
All this data is great,

but what it doesn't tell us
is why.

Now, i did a bunch of
digging around,

and this is what i found.

Energy doesn't like
to transition from one material

to another if they're different.

The more different they are,
the more it doesn't like it.

So, in the case
of an explosion underwater,

as that pressure wave
travels towards the surface,

it bounces off because
it can't pass through it.

And what it does
is it transitions

from a pressure wave
to a tensile wave.

And therefore, it's able to
neutralize a lot of the energy,

especially in that surface zone,
and that's why it's safer there.

So, soldiers in the military
are told

that in the case of
an underwater explosion,

they are far safer

if they are lying on the surface
of the water flat on their back

than if they're treading water.

What is our answer to that?

That's exactly what we found.

They got it right.

It's confirmed.

Totally confirmed.
Let's go.

I'll tell you,
even though that last blast

would have been survivable
if i was lying on the surface,

i wouldn't want to try it.

Yeah, that was like
being in an earthquake.

[ Laughs ]