Thursday, March 12, 2009

Help out another Bones fan

A student, and fan of Bones, is looking for a little help from other fans. Zaheer needs to know if there is a site or article out there where the science of Bones has been thoroughly critiqued. Obviously, Kathy Reichs has oversight of every script, but then TV can change a lot of things between reality and what's presented on the screen. If anyone knows of any public article anywhere where this has been done, please post it in the comments!

9 comments:

Jeannie said...

Didn't the show once get an award for being the most accurate in regard to science? There might be some helpful information in the award presentation speech or reasoning, if anyone knows where to dig that up.

jenny said...

I think the award was given to them by PopularScience or some other science magazine...Emily says that in the commentary of "The glowing bones in the old stone house", S2 DVD.

BonzGirl said...

Bug posted this on the Boneyard...

It's spoilery!

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03122009/tv/bones_to_pick_159120.htm

mithluin said...

"Most accurate" does not mean "no mistakes" - there are lots of reasons to shorten or dumb down explanations of things which can make the science iffy. For instance, in the most recent episode, most of their chemistry was good, but their hydrogen flame was not - it was pretty obvious they poured alcohol on their prop and lit it. Pure hydrogen burns ultraviolet (invisible), and hydrogen mixed with air tends to have an orange flame which quickly rises. Not a blue flame that hovers over the source. But you can't exactly film an invisible flame, and the slower burn of the alcohol has better timing.

Shep said...

Yeah, I noticed that. I was like -'Cool fire! ...Hang on a sec, hydrogen doesn't burn blue.'

jeny said...

Yes,the award was given to them because they were the most accurate of TVshows-compared to the sometimes rousing mistakes we see in other shows... They are admitedly very good but some mistakes are inevitable, as mithluin says..

@mithluin: you are right about the flame and I would like your opinion on sth,if you can help:correct me if I'm wrong but I think when Hodgins adds the antacid the product of the reaction should be MgF2,which forms *transparent* crystals, not the disgusting thing we saw.Unless it was formed because of one of the organic elements...It's not AT ALL important,but it bugs me since I saw the epi..Do you happen to know the answer? Or you,Shep?Or anybody else? Thanx! :-)

jenny said...

wrote down my name wrong lol *blushes*

Shep said...

I think you're right Jenny but I'd have to ask my Chemistry teacher to make sure! It's bugging me now too!

Shep said...

Jenny, I did ask my chemistry teacher (because I'm that cool), and he said that if the antacid was poured on quickly so the reaction was quick, it would form more of a hard casing since the clear crystals would not have time to properly form. Instead it would be a sort of powder and I'm guessing that would have reacted with the water released and caused that shell we saw.

Add to Technorati Favorites