h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Brainiac: Science Abuse - A12465254
Author: Cosmicdudeman-Thingite Minister of Certain Substances - U3715074

I've basically given up on trying to get this one as up to date as possible, I might go back and go through some of the other series when they stop making them. Until then, it's done.

Traveller in Time not trying many experiments
"Reads fairly complete some of the experiment theathres can be extended a little.

The Caravans take place on a clearing in a forest, they have a gravel site for the crane experiments, a backyard for this a hospital room for that an office floor for experimenting with students or other volunteers.

________________________
| Don't try this at home|

Is visible with any more or less dangerous experiment.

How about the idents ?
Each 'item' in the show has its own distinct sign, An exploding head a damaged object or other 'danger' symbols or just the friendly Diagonal Black and Yellow lines. "









"

I haven't fully read it yet, but it would be nice if you could let me know whether the title is Brainiac or Braniac - there's much confusion in the entry.

Did I miss some "i"'s? It should be Brainiac, the reason for the typos is that I haven't added that word to my Firefox's dictionary yet.

Ah, ok. Thanks.

This needs filling out a bit (a lot) methinks.

e.g./i.e What sort of results did they get from pitting one sort of person from another? What uses were found for wee? (makinbg fertiliser? making phosphorus?....)

You could link to my Entry on the Thermite Reaction at A6583025..


Wonders why '47 Second Science' and not '42 Second Science' . (There's scxope for an amusing comment there)



A

Well I've tried updating the Guide ML and fixing the typos but I'm getting an error at the end of the entry right after the "" where it says "Bad enclosing element BODY expecting P."

Any suggestions?

Never mind, found the weak link. The typos have been fixed, and I put the whole and thing in, except I'm not sure what to do with that for the ones that have a list. And I added the thermite link.

<> ran --> run

<> run --> conduct. just as fun --> just as much fun

<> --> It is broadcast in the UK

Human comparisons <> What sort of situations?

Conclusion <> --> This Entry mostly describes the regular segments, and only covers the first couple of series

Thanks for the suggestions. I really don't feel like scouring Wikipedia for the (wait, what? Firefox doesn't think Wikipedia is a word?) types of situations, and my memory is not all too good, so that's going to be something for later. I did get some in though.

You could link 'wee' to the 'Efflivia of the Human Body' A4113811

Reminds me of a cross between Mythbusters and a Saturday morning kids science program. I love your title

The rest of it is.... too long. I'm sorry, I just couldn't get through it all. Too many headers with not enough substance in between.

I don't think it should be necessary to give an exhaustive amount of detail here. Just give readers enough to make them want to check out the show when they can. Instead of trying to include all the different experiments they do and all the variations therof, try picking just a few - four or five - that you feel really demonstrate what they're about, and go into more detail about those.

I like the information about the filler spots, too. It gives an idea of how the show is structured, and the variety of how they interact with their viewers. Again, maybe not a list of every type of filler they use, but details about a few of your favourites.

Hmm good point. Yet again, I've been very lazy lately.

Not that lazy if you have an article in PR... more than Ive managed in donkeys .

On reflection, I reckon Milos is correct - better to illustrate the concept of the show with some quintessential Brainiac regular moments rather than try to list all of them, because as you have already noted, the series are still being made, so not only would an exhaustive lost be, errr, exhausting, it would be doomed to continual updating or incompleteness...

Oh yeah, and if you are going to mention Which Fruit Floats?, the person doing the testing is surely also worthy of some sort of mention?

Ya I did notice that the last time I looked over it. I'm wondering, is she famous (term used loosely) in the UK, or just some random babe?

This is one of my favourite programmes.


I think you could mention that John Tickle gained fame/notoriety in Big Brother A623620 in a footnote perhaps.

Oh, and you could link to my A20701540 entry about mobile phones and forecourt fires.


Isn't that dolly with the fruit supposed to be an *actual* professor of something or other .... I'd google her and see what pops up.


Nice Work.

NOt quite so simple as might be expected, but it appears Professor Myang Li is in fact rachel grant. An actress of note - a bond girl (called Peaceful Fountains of Desire) in Die Another Day no less.

I think the single most important thing to say about Brainiac is that it's an entertainment programme foremost and science second (if at all), and the programme makers have freely admitted that some of the experiments are faked.

http://www.badscience.net/2006/07/ka-boom/

On your caesium example: "Explaining what happened when the metals were put in the bath, a crew member said: “Absolutely bloody nothing. The density of caesium ensured it hit the bottom of the bath like a lead weight. The volume of water then drowned out the thermal shock. They could not go home empty-handed. So they rigged a bomb in the bottom of the bath."

Also now presented by Vic Reeves, though I see you have limited the entry to the first two series.

More or less, yes.