Helium-filled football

As with all threads I start, if this needs to be moved.......

I tried a year or so ago to leave a message on the MythBusters T.V. site, which is linked from the Discovery Channel site.

I have a question about one of the episodes that I have not seen asked anywhere. If any Snopesters have an account already on Discovery’s website, please pass this question along.

On one episode the guys were testing a legend that involved kicking a football filled with helium, as compared to air. The myth came from a coach who said that the opposing team’s coverage was so good, that he thought the ball had been tampered with.

The guys tested if the distance was the same for a ball filled with helium as it was for a ball filled with air.

I have two problems with this test.

I have a friend who was a Punter/Kicker in college. On the show, to keep everything even, they used a PASSING machine. Now, using my friend’s logic, they should have designed a kicking machine. He has told me several times that letting even 2-3 P.S.I. out of a ball will allow you to "kick through it" and make the ball go further. This is not addressed with a passing machine.

The other issue is that the actual myth was never tested at all. They only checked distance, NOT HANG TIME! If the myth was that the opposing team was getting down field to cover the kick-off, then hang time would have been the issue.

Anyone have any thoughts on this. Has anyone seen the episode in question, and did you think it was odd?

J.

[diddy]

Since you missed the episode you missed the fact that they actually did build a kicking machine later in the episode. Furthermore the myth was specifically about distance.

Source

A regulation NFL football will fly farther when filled with helium as opposed to compressed air at regulation pressure (13 psi).

The conclusion that they reached:

Under the same amount of impulse force under the same atmospheric conditions, balls filled with helium showed no significant difference from balls filled with compressed air. It was also shown that, under the same impulse, both types of balls had the same initial velocity; since the helium-filled balls have a lower weight than the air-filled ones, the helium-filled balls have less inertia in flight: in fact, they may perform worse than air-filled balls over larger distances.

But I think that is where it was wrong. They only tested distance. The claim was from a coach who said the other team was getting down field to cover the kick. That would be hang time. It was taking LONGER to get there. Not that it was going a longer distance.

[TakakoChigusa]

Originally Posted by wild1

But I think that is where it was wrong. They only tested distance. The claim was from a coach who said the other team was getting down field to cover the kick. That would be hang time. It was taking LONGER to get there. Not that it was going a longer distance.

I am a huge fan of the show and have this episode on tape. I swear that they discussed hang time in reference to the helium football myth. I am at college, in between classes at the moment, but when I get home later I will check to see what was said exactly when hang time was brought up.

[Hans Off]

Even if it did affect hang time (which my instincts tell me it wouldn't), how much extra time would you need to gain an advantage? It would have to be in the region of tenths of a second to have any affect at all.

That I do not believe is plausable in any level.

Besides the advantage would be to both teams getting down field to cover the kick.

Surely to have a sneaky advantage you want a shorter than expected hang time so the opposition don't get there in time?

In Rugby Union (our version of egg chasing here in Europe) having the ball "hang" in the air just gives the defense (or offence) more time to cover the kick.

The only time that I could possibly see it as being an advantage would be during a line-out to get one team to missjudge its jump!

But even then the time from hand to hand is far too small.


I don't believe the legent and I cannot even see the logic of the "con" being logical.

[Brad from Georgia]

If you put a pigeon inside the ball and trained it to fly frantically when the ball was kicked.....

[ASL]

Originally Posted by Hans Off

Besides the advantage would be to both teams getting down field to cover the kick.

Surely to have a sneaky advantage you want a shorter than expected hang time so the opposition don't get there in time?
...

I don't believe the legent and I cannot even see the logic of the "con" being logical.

In American Football, the way it works is the football is kicked or punted over MOST of the opposing players, however there is a kick or punt returner hanging back to receive the kick. In other words, the opposing team already has a player in the vicinity of where the ball will land if it's a good kick. So, if the ball gets there quicker than the kicking team's players can run, the opposing receivers will be able to catch the ball virtually uncontested and without fear. If it takes much longer to get there, then they will not only be able to catch the ball un-scathed, but also advance forward and gain yardage with the ball unopposed until the kicking teams line reaches them. They will also have much more room to look for gaps in the kicking teams line to make through. Hence, the longer it takes the ball to get there, the more time the kicking team has to get there and clobber the opposing teams receiver the second he has his hands on the ball (unless of course he opts for a fair catch, in which case he may catch the ball unopposed, but the ball is dead when and where he catches it).