Plane on a conveyor belt

[Lason]

will be on mythbusters next Wednesday 1-30-08. Just saw a preview on yesterdays show.

[FATHERFORD]

will be on mythbusters next Wednesday 1-30-08. Just saw a preview on yesterdays show.

Better fucking air this time.

[5.0LiterRiceEater]

Damn it I'm going miss it. I will be on a plane but it wont be on a tread mill. :(

[HarrisonBT]

yes! i get the chance to start a shit storm! Whats the myth? the treadmill keeps the plane still? does the treadmill ever stop? how the hell could it take off if there is no air moving over the wings?

[GT Dan]

I thought the were going to do a helicopter on a turn table also...

[jluv]

yes! i get the chance to start a shit storm! Whats the myth? the treadmill keeps the plane still? does the treadmill ever stop? how the hell could it take off if there is no air moving over the wings?

It couldn't. But there will be air moving over the wings when the plane moves forward. The treadmill will not be able to keep the plane stationary no matter how fast it spins. As long as the treadmill is long enough, the plane takes off.

This has only been explained a million times.

[JP135]

They had some teaser clips in the ad I saw. We'll see.

IT WON'T FLY!!! EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.

[jluv]

They had some teaser clips in the ad I saw. We'll see.

IT WON'T FLY!!! EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.

You can't be serious. If so, sorry about your mental retardation!

[Jimi G]

yes! i get the chance to start a shit storm! Whats the myth? the treadmill keeps the plane still? does the treadmill ever stop? how the hell could it take off if there is no air moving over the wings?

Oh shit here we go again....and it will fly :p

[Fox466]

I got $50 says it flies. Who wants some?

[Tyrone Biggums]

I dig some Kari Byron.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/198/512688048_8827b0587f.jpg

[Fox466]

I would so hit that... :cool:

[Old Fart]

I would so hit that... :cool:

Oh yes!!

[Slowhand]

It couldn't. But there will be air moving over the wings when the plane moves forward. The treadmill will not be able to keep the plane stationary no matter how fast it spins. As long as the treadmill is long enough, the plane takes off.

This has only been explained a million times.

it'd have to be a damned long treadmill, but you're right.

[livinglegend_86]

I thought the were going to do a helicopter on a turn table also...

LMAO!

[Shoot To Kill]

I dig some Kari Byron.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/198/512688048_8827b0587f.jpg
:eek:

GOOD GOD!


i'd knock the fucking bottom out of that shit.

[Yale]

She has one of the roundest asses on a skinny chick ever.

[Magnus]

Logic says that it will fly.
But i won't be surprised if it doesn't.

[scott442]

She has one of the roundest asses on a skinny chick ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykhSLNlx3n0

[Lason]

Uh oh! Looks like all the "internet physisists" are wrong and plane will in fact take off as normal. Dont everyone say it at once, Lason is a motherfucking genius!

[Shoot To Kill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykhSLNlx3n0
mmm.

i'd do many, many, illegal things to that woman.

[Magnus]

ibetsomethinghappensandtheycan'tcompletethetest

[Fox466]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4owlyCOzDiE

Son of a bitch.

[cobra93teal]

Is anyone suprised? really

[Baron]

why was there any debate at all? It did just what it does. That is like saying a seaplane wont take off going upstream.

[injectedpony]

Is anyone suprised? really


No.... but I bet most of the people that posted that it won't take off will not be posting up in any of these threads..... :cool:

[Shoot To Kill]

i didn't watch it, so did i take off?

[Lason]

No.... but I bet most of the people that posted that it won't take off will not be posting up in any of these threads..... :cool:

EXACTLY, or they will say the expirement was botched or my personal favorite. "There was more than one way to interpret the question"

[8mpg]

No.... but I bet most of the people that posted that it won't take off will not be posting up in any of these threads..... :cool:

I bet they will...they will claim that bullshit "but if it was worded the other way, it wouldnt have taken off" :rolleyes:

it took off right?? I didnt watch it but have been saying it would if it were long enough. :p

[Fox466]

Would someone please answer the fucking question? Did it take off?

Damn. Bad as a bunch of freakin' women with the suspense...

[Baron]

Would someone please answer the fucking question? Did it take off?

Damn. Bad as a bunch of freakin' women with the suspense...
like a champ, not even hesitation.

[The Raven]

No.... but I bet most of the people that posted that it won't take off will not be posting up in any of these threads..... :cool:

Any half way intelligent person arguing that it won't take off was doing so based on semantics, not physics. At no point during that take off was the conveyor belt moving EXACTLY the same speed as the plane, much less for the entire lift off. For them to be going exactly the same speed, there would be no forward motion.

[injectedpony]

I bet they will...they will claim that bullshit "but if it was worded the other way, it wouldnt have taken off" :rolleyes:

it took off right?? I didnt watch it but have been saying it would if it were long enough. :p


Yeah I'm sure there will be all kinds of excuses running around in these threads....

and yes it took off, I think they said it only took 85 feet or so...

[Carrie]

Would someone please answer the fucking question? Did it take off?

Yes.

[Carrie]

For them to be going exactly the same speed, there would be no forward motion.

LOL

[injectedpony]

Any half way intelligent person arguing that it won't take off was doing so based on semantics, not physics. At no point during that take off was the conveyor belt moving EXACTLY the same speed as the plane, much less for the entire lift off. For them to be going exactly the same speed, there would be no forward motion.

So what your saying is the the truck did not match the take off speed of the plane @ 25mph before the plane left the "conveyor belt"?

[8mpg]

Any half way intelligent person arguing that it won't take off was doing so based on semantics, not physics. At no point during that take off was the conveyor belt moving EXACTLY the same speed as the plane, much less for the entire lift off. For them to be going exactly the same speed, there would be no forward motion.

jesus christ... The play will always move forward and gain speed. The conveyor belt could have turned 1000mph backwards and the plane will ALWAYS move forward and gain speed. The wheels would just spin 1000mph in reverse, but the plane still moves forward. It's not that hard of a concept

[injectedpony]

LOL


ssshhhh you will ruin it for him :D

[2165 Turbo Rail]

come on people.. the wheels have NOTHING to do with it

[injectedpony]

jesus christ... The play will always move forward and gain speed. The conveyor belt could have turned 1000mph backwards and the plane will ALWAYS move forward and gain speed. The wheels would just spin 1000mph in reverse, but the plane still moves forward. It's not that hard of a concept


You sir know nothing of physics, if you had any sort of insight you would know that if it was the EXACT match the plane would sit there like a brick..... :eek:

[8mpg]

come on people.. the wheels have NOTHING to do with it

If Aaron (the NOT half intelligent) could just grasp that simple concept

[injectedpony]

If Aaron (the NOT half intelligent) could just grasp that simple concept


If you guys could only understand the physics of it all like he does....

[8mpg]

You sir know nothing of physics, if you had any sort of insight you would know that if it was the EXACT match the plane would sit there like a brick..... :eek:

you are a moron

educate me...

[injectedpony]

you are a moron

its called sarcasm..... damn this board sometimes.....hahahaha


No.... but I bet most of the people that posted that it won't take off will not be posting up in any of these threads..... :cool:

This look familar???? It should seeing how you quoted it a few posts ago... :rolleyes:

[Shoot To Kill]

LMAO @ you fuckers.

[8mpg]

its called sarcasm..... damn this board sometimes.....hahahaha

LOL sorry man... I didnt catch it :D

maybe Aaron can understand the simplicity of this video...hell, the 5 year old does :D

Im getting owned by the embeded code...

LINK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EopVDgSPAk


The treadmill is going 10mph in reverse...that little plane I doubt hits 10mph and it still goes forward

[The Raven]

The treadmill is going 10mph in reverse...that little plane I doubt hits 10mph and it still goes forward

I'm the dumb one, yet you can't seem to grasp the simple concept of the = sign. Again, I never doubted that the plane would take off, but I am also aware that the wheel speed and belt speed did not match. Quoted above, you yourself said that the plane was going slower than the belt. Even though the plane was going slower, we are talking about wheel speed. For forward motion to occur, the wheels have to be moving faster (as in not equal to) than the belt.

[injectedpony]

I'm the dumb one, yet you can't seem to grasp the simple concept of the = sign. Again, I never doubted that the plane would take off, but I am also aware that the wheel speed and belt speed did not match. Quoted above, you yourself said that the plane was going slower than the belt. Even though the plane was going slower, we are talking about wheel speed. For forward motion to occur, the wheels have to be moving faster (as in not equal to) than the belt.


hahaha this guy kills me.... :D

[8mpg]

I'm the dumb one, yet you can't seem to grasp the simple concept of the = sign. Again, I never doubted that the plane would take off, but I am also aware that the wheel speed and belt speed did not match. Quoted above, you yourself said that the plane was going slower than the belt. Even though the plane was going slower, we are talking about wheel speed. For forward motion to occur, the wheels have to be moving faster (as in not equal to) than the belt.
I guess Im just confused. If a plane as tied to something the plane to not move forward, the wheel speed would equal the belt speed thus the plane not moving. The problem is, the as the plane moves forward from thrust of the engines, even if you continuously increased the belt speed (even to 10x faster than the plane wheel speed) as the plane moves forward, the plane will always move. The belt speed literally has nothing to do with the plane taking off. The plane doesnt use the wheels for the forward momentum... its free spinning.

So your whole point is that the wheel speed did not equal the belt speed therefore the whole experiment was bunk due to the wording?



edit/// fucking shit.. if thats what you meant from the beginning, Im gonna be pissed :o

[exlude]

I'm the dumb one, yet you can't seem to grasp the simple concept of the = sign. Again, I never doubted that the plane would take off, but I am also aware that the wheel speed and belt speed did not match. Quoted above, you yourself said that the plane was going slower than the belt. Even though the plane was going slower, we are talking about wheel speed. For forward motion to occur, the wheels have to be moving faster (as in not equal to) than the belt.

If using your "logic", then:

When the plane speed > belt speed: takeoff
When the plane = belt speed: sitting still
When the plane < belt speed: plane moves backwards

Unfortunately, when you look at it using real world physics, the plane moves forward in all 3 situations. Even when plane speed <<<< belt speed. And even when the belt is moving before the plane. In fact, in the first experiment they did, the plane fullfilled all three of the above situations.

[JP135]

I'm gonna use Bill Clinton's patented tactic of being caught in the wrong and gonna explain it away to prove that I was actually right. Well, sort of.

IF the plane and the treadmill go exactly the same speed, so that the plane has zero actual ground speed and sits still as the treadmill runs, I still don't think it would be able to take off, as there would not be any air passing across the wings would not be able to generate lift.

The plane on MB actually developed ground speed almost from the get-go (as indicated by it passing the traffic cones)which allowed wind to cross the wings and provide lift. I don't think their experiment proved anything.

My flamesuit is zipped up tight.http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JP135/flamesuit.jpg

[injectedpony]

edit/// fucking shit.. if thats what you meant from the beginning, Im gonna be pissed :o

ahhh damn that to hell if that is what he meant.... :mad:

[8mpg]

I'm gonna use Bill Clinton's patented tactic of being caught in the wrong and gonna explain it away to prove that I was actually right. Well, sort of.

IF the plane and the treadmill go exactly the same speed, so that the plane has zero actual ground speed and sits still as the treadmill runs, I still don't think it would be able to take off, as there would not be any air passing across the wings would not be able to generate lift.

The plane on MB actually developed ground speed almost from the get-go (as indicated by it passing the traffic cones)which allowed wind to cross the wings and provide lift. I don't think their experiment proved anything.

My flamesuit is zipped up tight.
thats the thing though.. in no circumstance (unless the plane is tied to something) will the plane ever sit still...

We are just so used to thinking how cars work...the wheels drive the car forward. With a plane, it uses propellers or a jet engine to provide thrust. The plane will ALWAYS move forward on a treadmill no matter how fast its going. The wheels just help it hover over the ground and play absolutely no relevance in the planes ability to take off. They just provide a smooth landing and a means of keeping the planes belly off the ground.

[DHG BULLITT]

I'm gonna use Bill Clinton's patented tactic of being caught in the wrong and gonna explain it away to prove that I was actually right. Well, sort of.

IF the plane and the treadmill go exactly the same speed, so that the plane has zero actual ground speed and sits still as the treadmill runs, I still don't think it would be able to take off, as there would not be any air passing across the wings would not be able to generate lift.

The plane on MB actually developed ground speed almost from the get-go (as indicated by it passing the traffic cones)which allowed wind to cross the wings and provide lift. I don't think their experiment proved anything.

My flamesuit is zipped up tight.

Free spinning wheels don't create enough friction to reverse the thrust of a propeller engine, let alone the thrust of a jet engine if they were to take this real full scale.

[jakesford]

I've posted this before, in one of the many plane vs treadmill threads and i'm sticking to it. Like mentioned, its more of an issue of semantics.

Will the plane takeoff...YES. Ignoring the normal force up and the gravitational force down, you are left with three others:

1. A small force back caused by the rotating resistance of the wheels, friction in the wheel bearings etc. The wheels are free spinning!
2. Another backward force of the air resistance as the plane begins to move forward.
3. Forward force from the thrust created by the engine. Newtons 3rd law at work

Since we're dealing with an operational aircraft we know that the force 3 is always > force 2. Further more force 1 is meniscal compared to force 3 so by adding them up you will end up with a net forward force. Best way to think of this is standing on treadmill wearing a pair of roller blades, granted you will initially go backwards as the wheels won't spin, but if you apply just a small forward force (someone pushing on your back) to over come the rolling resistance you will maintain position, with little effort.

The problem with this whole issue is the criteria for the treadmill to exactly match the speed of the wheels in the opposite direction. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE as this speed would have to reach infinity, and in the real world there would be some failure! In this model the wheels will always try to go faster than the treadmill, and in the real world the treadmill speed will always lag behind the wheel speed since the plane will be accelerating forward.

[The Raven]

If using your "logic", then:

When the plane speed > belt speed: takeoff
When the plane = belt speed: sitting still
When the plane < belt speed: plane moves backwards

Unfortunately, when you look at it using real world physics, the plane moves forward in all 3 situations. Even when plane speed <<<< belt speed. And even when the belt is moving before the plane. In fact, in the first experiment they did, the plane fullfilled all three of the above situations.


The riddle that I read specified wheel speed, not plane speed, and as I am sure that you know, aren't the same thing. The mythbusters episode focused on the physics of the riddle, and not the semantics. I assure you that the wheels were going faster than the belt the entire take off.

We are "arguing" the same thing. What dumbfounds me is the number of people that can't see what we are talking about.

[Magnus]

Here's what always got me about this argument:
Who seriously gives a shit, and what is the practical use of this????

[8mpg]

Here's what always got me about this argument:
Who seriously gives a shit, and what is the practical use of this????

its just something to debate. Lots of people on each side of the fence trying to prove how the other side is a moron :D Its fun

[exlude]

The riddle that I read specified wheel speed, not plane speed, and as I am sure that you know, aren't the same thing. The mythbusters episode focused on the physics of the riddle, and not the semantics. I assure you that the wheels were going faster than the belt the entire take off.

We are "arguing" the same thing. What dumbfounds me is the number of people that can't see what we are talking about.

I always see it posed as. "If a plane is on a treadmill that can match its speed in the opposite direction...". Never seen it posed with, "wheelspeed".

The matter of fact is, if the treadmill matches the wheel speed...then the plane's engines must be turned off.

[Lason]

The riddle that I read specified wheel speed, not plane speed, and as I am sure that you know, aren't the same thing. The mythbusters episode focused on the physics of the riddle, and not the semantics. I assure you that the wheels were going faster than the belt the entire take off.

We are "arguing" the same thing. What dumbfounds me is the number of people that can't see what we are talking about.

Oh we see what your saying and always have, we just dont understand why you are overthinking the question and argue semantics like a woman ;) :D

[jluv]

The riddle that I read specified wheel speed, not plane speed, and as I am sure that you know, aren't the same thing. The mythbusters episode focused on the physics of the riddle, and not the semantics. I assure you that the wheels were going faster than the belt the entire take off.

We are "arguing" the same thing. What dumbfounds me is the number of people that can't see what we are talking about.


Aaron, the riddle you read that talked about wheel speed is a botchy misinterpretation and rewrite of the original question. I know what you're talking about, because I saw it online a couple of times. It reads like this:

“Imagine a plane is sitting on a massive conveyor belt, as wide and as long as a runway. The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction. Can the plane take off?"

In this case, the question itself makes no sense. The only way the treadmill and the plane's wheels could match is if there were virtually no engine thrust. In other words, it would not be the treadmill keeping the plane still, but the fact that the plane was not even trying. Because as we all know (well, most of us, at least) as soon as the plane cranks up the engines, the thrust will indeed move it forward. As soon as the plane moves forward one inch, its wheels are spinning faster than the treadmill, and therefore the question itself is ruined. The fact is, no matter how fast a treadmill could spin, be it thousands and thousands of mph, it culd not possibly keep a plane from moving forward. Just matching the wheels speed alone would not accomplish anything in a situation where a plane actually attempts to take off.

The original question, the way I read it ojn here the first time, and the only way that can possibly make any sense and allow for a plane to actual attempt a take off, did not refer to the wheel speed, but the speed of the airplane itself. Picture a radar gun pointed at the airplane, and that radar gun connected to the treadmill. The question reads like this:

"A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?"

Mythbusters did not address the wheel speed version of the question, probably because they know it wasn't the original question, and because it does not even allow for a plane to use any real thrust. A plane using full thrust could not possibly be affected by a treadmill, and the wheel speed could never ever be the same.

[ruffdaddy]

Why is this still being debated. It all has to do with the way the question is perceived.

If the wheel speed is matched exactly, the plane is motionless. While the plane is on the ground, the speed measured is land speed. If the net land speed is 0, there is no fluid flow over the wings. Just because the power is not applied to the wheels does not mean that the speed is not measured at the wheels, or relative to the ground.

If you really think it will take off, answer me this: What is the plane's land speed if the wheels' speed is matched exactly by a treadmill?

And secondly: Can a plane take off without fluid flow over the airfoils?

[jluv]

Just because the power is not applied to the wheels does not mean that the speed is not measured at the wheels, or relative to the ground.

Since when is speed measured at the wheels?

If you really think it will take off, answer me this: What is the plane's land speed if the wheels' speed is matched exactly by a treadmill?

Zero. That also means that the plane is not applying any thrust at all, so it's not even trying to take off. Don't credit the treadmill for being able to keep the plane stationary, because that is impossible. What does that have to do with this question? The treadmill is not matching wheel speed, it is matching the plane's speed.

And secondly: Can a plane take off without fluid flow over the airfoils?

Of course not. Do you really think that anyone here is saying that a plane would take off if it didn't move forward? Fact is, it does move forward.

[ruffdaddy]

Since when is speed measured at the wheels?



Zero. That also means that the plane is not applying any thrust at all, so it's not even trying to take off. Don't credit the treadmill for being able to keep the plane stationary, because that is impossible. What does that have to do with this question? The treadmill is not matching wheel speed, it is matching the plane's speed.



Of course not. Do you really think that anyone here is saying that a plane would take off if it didn't move forward? Fact is, it does move forward.

haha...you don't get it. Thrust doesn't only apply to air speed. The fact is...if the wheels are spinning the same speed as the treadmill, the plane is relatively motionless.

A plane can apply thrust and remain motionless for the record...

[Nate]

Jesus Tapdancing Christ...

The plane took off (like I said to those who didn't understand physics) and that's the end of the story.

[ruffdaddy]

Jesus Tapdancing Christ...

The plane took off (like I said to those who didn't understand physics) and that's the end of the story.

hahahahaha....you're basing your conclusion off an experiment with a $20 electric plain, a home treadmill, and absolutely no data logging equipment to monitor speed? Oh to be a simple person...

If you want to debate physics I'll take you up anytime.

[jluv]

haha...you don't get it. Thrust doesn't only apply to air speed. The fact is...if the wheels are spinning the same speed as the treadmill, the plane is relatively motionless.

A plane can apply thrust and remain motionless for the record...

Dude, you're the one who doesn't get it. And no, a plane cannot apply any significant amount of thrust and remian motionless on a treadmill.

[ruffdaddy]

Dude, you're the one who doesn't get it. And no, a plane cannot apply any significant amount of thrust and remian motionless on a treadmill.

I get it...I get that there's not a treadmill in the world that can keep up with a planes thrust. But if there was, the shit would hit the fan.

[jluv]

hahahahaha....you're basing your conclusion off an experiment with a $20 electric plain, a home treadmill, and absolutely no data logging equipment to monitor speed? Oh to be a simple person...

If you want to debate physics I'll take you up anytime.

Did you watch the show? They also used a full size plane and it took off. they also used equipment to monitor speed. Where the fuck were you? They ditched the "home" treadmill right off the bat because it wasn't long enough.

Some people are so thick-headed that they can't see the light even when it's shining right in their eyes. You are on of those people. You have no business arguing anything, much less physics.

[Nate]

hahahahaha....you're basing your conclusion off an experiment with a $20 electric plain, a home treadmill, and absolutely no data logging equipment to monitor speed? Oh to be a simple person...

If you want to debate physics I'll take you up anytime.
I'm sure you get people that look at you like this all the time when you "know" what you are talking about. I mean you do know everything you need to in the real world right?

http://www.hantak.com/images/picard.jpg

[jluv]

I get it...I get that there's not a treadmill in the world that can keep up with a planes thrust. But if there was, the shit would hit the fan.


You don't get it. Even a theoretical treadmill that could spin a million mph would not be able to negate the normal amount of thrust needed for a plane to take off. That's because the treadmill has absolutely no effect on the plane being able to move forward, no matter how fast it can spin.

[ruffdaddy]

You don't get it. Even a theoretical treadmill that could spin a million mph would not be able to negate the normal amount of thrust needed for a plane to take off. That's because the treadmill has absolutely no effect on the plane being able to move forward, no matter how fast it can spin.

So friction doesn't exist huh? Neither does rolling resistance I guess.

[ruffdaddy]

I'm sure you get people that look at you like this all the time when you "know" what you are talking about. I mean you do know everything you need to in the real world right?

http://www.hantak.com/images/picard.jpg

there you go again...trying to talk like youre somebody just because you think you were once like me. You sir...are a little cunt.

[Nate]

there you go again...trying to talk like youre somebody just because you think you were once like me. You sir...are a little cunt.
I may be a lil cunt but I understand Physics and how this would work.

[ruffdaddy]

I may be a lil cunt but I understand Physics and how this would work.

You uderstand freshman level physics for business majors. Where friction doesn't exist...why would a finance major even argue this point?

[Nate]

You uderstand freshman level physics for business majors. Where friction doesn't exist...why would a finance major even argue this point?
Friction does exist, I never said it didn't. You go and ASSume you understand my viewpoint on the argument. I could type out a detailed explanation (like I did in the orginal POAT thread back in 06/07) but you still won't grasp the concepts that the thurst will overpower the friction. The plane will move forward and the plane will fly. No matter what I say you will you argue. Go finish your degree and change the world son.

[Jimi G]

I missed Mythbusters last nite instead I did my own experiment at the bar, I call it the fatty vs. the treadmill, and the treadmill won, lol. So am I seeing this right they used a electric plane on the show?

[BLAKE]

You uderstand freshman level physics for business majors. Where friction doesn't exist...why would a finance major even argue this point?

Not enough friction is possible in the wheel bearings to overcome the thrust. It's that simple. Take the wheels off or flatten the tires and you might have something. But for now, it's you're know-it-all self against the world. Kinda funny how often that happens, isn't it?

[ruffdaddy]

Friction does exist, I never said it didn't. You go and ASSume you understand my viewpoint on the argument. I could type out a detailed explanation (like I did in the orginal POAT thread back in 06/07) but you still won't grasp the concepts that the thurst will overpower the friction. The plane will move forward and the plane will fly. No matter what I say you will you argue. Go finish your degree and change the world son.

Friction isn't going to go away...it will remain what it need to be for the wheel speed to match the conveyor speed. But then again...you're looking at it from an elementary aspect. I can't expect you to understand.

Go make shit fifty an hour and count beans all day son.

[Mach1Nut]

The riddle that I read specified wheel speed, not plane speed, and as I am sure that you know, aren't the same thing. The mythbusters episode focused on the physics of the riddle, and not the semantics. I assure you that the wheels were going faster than the belt the entire take off.

We are "arguing" the same thing. What dumbfounds me is the number of people that can't see what we are talking about.

This is the EXACT issue that most everyone seems to miss.

The original riddle I heard also was the wheel speed had to match the treadmill speed. In this instance, the plane would sit still.

If the plane speed had to match the treadmill, it will take off, no questions asked.

[ruffdaddy]

Not enough friction is possible in the wheel bearings to overcome the thrust. It's that simple. Take the wheels off or flatten the tires and you might have something. But for now, it's you're know-it-all self against the world. Kinda funny how often that happens, isn't it?

You are correct almost...There's not a conveyor in the world powerful enough to produce enough speed to provide the required friction. I understand the view point of thrust. But you can't simply say thrust is more powerful than friction. You can try and look realistically at such an abstract situation. You have to apply theory when dealing with a theoretical situation.

[jluv]

So friction doesn't exist huh? Neither does rolling resistance I guess.

Doesn't matter. How fast would a treamdill need to spin to create enough resistance to overcome the thrust of a plane? Just throw out a number. That's obviously a lot higher than the speed of the plane. In this question, the treadmill speed MATCHES the speed of the plane, in which case it takes off. Again, just to be nice, we could spot your treadmill an extra 500 mph to a jet's 200 mph, and it's still not going to keep the plane from moving forward.

Seriously, did you even watch the show? I personally didn't need to watch it for any confirmation, but I figured it would at least help people like you come to your senses.

[ruffdaddy]

Doesn't matter. How fast would a treamdill need to spin to create enough resistance to overcome the thrust of a plane? Just throw out a number. That's obviously a lot higher than the speed of the plane. In this question, the treadmill speed MATCHES the speed of the plane, in which case it takes off. Again, just to be nice, we could spot your treadmill an extra 500 mph to a jet's 200 mph, and it's still not going to keep the plane from moving forward.

Seriously, did you even watch the show? I personally didn't need to watch it for any confirmation, but I figured it would at least help people like you come to your senses.

land speed is land speed...so yes a plane traveling backwards at 300mph might actually fly. But a plane with a net land speed of 0 will not. Unless it's got an enormous head wind...haha

[Nate]

Friction isn't going to go away...it will remain what it need to be for the wheel speed to match the conveyor speed. But then again...you're looking at it from an elementary aspect. I can't expect you to understand.

Go make shit fifty an hour and count beans all day son.
LOL, there you go again making assumptions of what classes I did and didn't take in college before deciding on a Finance degree. I can't say I would expect you to understand anything outside of your small small undeveloped world yet either.

I do just fine making what I am, and am quite happy where I am in my life. I don't have things to prove like you and go out and change the WORLD!

[jluv]

You are correct almost...There's not a conveyor in the world powerful enough to produce enough speed to provide the required friction.

And if there was, it obviously wouldn't be matching the speed of the plane, seeing as how it would be spinning at trillions of mph (theoretically) vs a plane that can only go a few hundred. Remember, the riddle asks if the plane could take off if the speed of the plane and the treadmill match, not can any amount of treadmill speed ever keep a plane still.

[ruffdaddy]

And if there was, it obviously wouldn't be matching the speed of the plane, seeing as how it would be spinning at trillions of mph (theoretically) vs a plane that can only go a few hundred. Remember, the riddle asks if the plane could take off if the speed of the plane and the treadmill match, not can any amount of treadmill speed ever keep a plane still.

heh...exactly...A treadmill would have to travel trillions of MPH to match a planes speed. But if that treadmill could...it wouldn't fly. Actually...you'd have all kinds of failures in the plane before it had a chance to get that high.

[Juiceweezl]

I'm not physics major, but I do understand many concepts. I figured the plane would take off because there is no way a treadmill (especially one pulled by a truck) can go fast enough to overcome the thrust. However, hypothetically speaking (and isn't that what we're discussing here?), if the treadmill could spin fast enough to counter the forward effect of the thrust, wouldn't the plane sit still? One of you dfwstangs gurus break it down.

With no prop motion and the treadmill spinning, the plane goes backwards (weight of the plane and friction in the wheels). As prop motion/thrust is applied (as the prop spins faster), the plane begins to overcome the treadmill and starts creeping forward. If more treadmill speed is applied as more prop speed/thrust is applied, wouldn't it have a nuetral effect? Granted, the treamill would have to spin at an infinite rate, but I would think in a hypothetical discussion, infinite thrust and treadmill speed are applicable. Ignore the wheel speed, land speed, treadmill speed, etc. I believe this is the real argument. Hypothetically speaking, the plane wouldn't take off if such treadmill existed, BUT since there is no such treadmill, the plane will fly everytime.

[ruffdaddy]

I'm not physics major, but I do understand many concepts. I figured the plane would take off because there is no way a treadmill (especially one pulled by a truck) can go fast enough to overcome the thrust. However, hypothetically speaking (and isn't that what we're discussing here?), if the treadmill could spin fast enough to counter the forward effect of the thrust, wouldn't the plane sit still? One of you dfwstangs gurus break it down.

With no prop motion and the treadmill spinning, the plane goes backwards (weight of the plane and friction in the wheels). As prop motion/thrust is applied (as the prop spins faster), the plane begins to overcome the treadmill and starts creeping forward. If more treadmill speed is applied as more prop speed/thrust is applied, wouldn't it have a nuetral effect? Granted, the treamill would have to spin at an infinite rate, but I would think in a hypothetical discussion, infinite thrust and treadmill speed are applicable. Ignore the wheel speed, land speed, treadmill speed, etc. I believe this is the real argument. Hypothetically speaking, the plane wouldn't take off if such treadmill existed, BUT since there is no such treadmill, the plane will fly everytime.

You're hoypothetical assumption is right.

[jluv]

land speed is land speed...so yes a plane traveling backwards at 300mph might actually fly. But a plane with a net land speed of 0 will not. Unless it's got an enormous head wind...haha

If the plane has a speed of 0, of course it won't take off! That's just it, it will move forward and achieve whatever speed it needs! Plane goes 190, treadmill goes 190, plane takes off. Plane goes 200, treadmill goes 200, plane takes off. Plane goes 210, treadmill goes 210, plane takes off.

Did you watch the show?

[ruffdaddy]

If the plane has a speed of 0, of course it won't take off! That's just it, it will move forward and achieve whatever speed it needs! Plane goes 190, treadmill goes 190, plane takes off. Plane goes 200, treadmill goes 200, plane takes off. Plane goes 210, treadmill goes 210, plane takes off.

Did you watch the show?

wait...if the planes going 210, and the treadmills going 210...hows the plane moving at all?

[Nate]

You're hoypothetical assumption is right.
Your and hypothetical.

[ruffdaddy]

Your and hypothetical.

Oh snap...typo's and grammar errors. Nice catch cunt.

[Nate]

wait...if the planes going 210, and the treadmills going 210...hows the plane moving at all?
The wheels are free spinning is how the plane is moving at 210 mph. If it were a car on a treadmill your assumptions would be correct. But sense thrust is moving the plane forward and not the wheels driving the plane, the plane is moving forward.

[jluv]

heh...exactly...A treadmill would have to travel trillions of MPH to match a planes speed. But if that treadmill could...it wouldn't fly.

No shit, Sherlock! What does that have to do with the original question? You are just making up your own shit to argue. In the original question, the treadmill matches the speed of the aircraft, which could only be a couple of hundred mph, not trillions.

[Nate]

Oh snap...typo's and grammar errors. Nice catch cunt.
If you are going to debate in an adult type conversation, you tend to try and come across as intelligent and not resort to name calling when you are getting smacked around by just about everyone telling you that you are wrong. If enough people are telling you something but you refuse to accept it you may want to take a look at your assumptions and what you believe is correct.

[jluv]

I'm not physics major, but I do understand many concepts. I figured the plane would take off because there is no way a treadmill (especially one pulled by a truck) can go fast enough to overcome the thrust. However, hypothetically speaking (and isn't that what we're discussing here?), if the treadmill could spin fast enough to counter the forward effect of the thrust, wouldn't the plane sit still? One of you dfwstangs gurus break it down.

With no prop motion and the treadmill spinning, the plane goes backwards (weight of the plane and friction in the wheels). As prop motion/thrust is applied (as the prop spins faster), the plane begins to overcome the treadmill and starts creeping forward. If more treadmill speed is applied as more prop speed/thrust is applied, wouldn't it have a nuetral effect? Granted, the treamill would have to spin at an infinite rate, but I would think in a hypothetical discussion, infinite thrust and treadmill speed are applicable. Ignore the wheel speed, land speed, treadmill speed, etc. I believe this is the real argument. Hypothetically speaking, the plane wouldn't take off if such treadmill existed, BUT since there is no such treadmill, the plane will fly everytime.

In that situation, the treadmill would be spinning a LOT faster than the plane ever could. In the original situation, the treadmill simply MATCHES the plane's speed. Your hypothetical situation has nothing to do with the question at hand.

[jluv]

wait...if the planes going 210, and the treadmills going 210...hows the plane moving at all?


Are you serious? It's moving quite easily right down the treadmill, just as it would on a runway. A treadmill going 210 does NOTHING to stop a plane going 210. The treadmill could be in a different city going 210 and have just as much affect as it would being right under the wheels of the plane.

[ruffdaddy]

The wheels are free spinning is how the plane is moving at 210 mph. If it were a car on a treadmill your assumptions would be correct. But sense thrust is moving the plane forward and not the wheels driving the plane, the plane is moving forward.

I guess planes just have wheels for looks then. In that case you're absolutely right. Thank you for opening my eyes to the world of physics.

[jluv]

I guess planes just have wheels for looks then. In that case you're absolutely right. Thank you for opening my eyes to the world of physics.

You don't even make any sense. You are really just making yourself look dumber and dumber with each post. I'm not being mean, just honest.

[jluv]

Oh, and did you even watch the show? Why can't you answer that question? Based on the things you have said, it seems pretty obvious that you didn't.

[ruffdaddy]

You don't even make any sense. You are really just making yourself look dumber and dumber with each post. I'm not being mean, just honest.

Look...I agree that thrust is much more powerful than an ordinary treadmill. But if the plane is progressing forward, then the speeds are not equal are they? So the speed will just increase infinitely.

And I'm only talking to nate like that cause he's a prick.

[BLAKE]

You are correct almost...There's not a conveyor in the world powerful enough to produce enough speed to provide the required friction. I understand the view point of thrust. But you can't simply say thrust is more powerful than friction. You can try and look realistically at such an abstract situation. You have to apply theory when dealing with a theoretical situation.


Nice non answer there pal. I managed to completely derail your position and insult you in a few sentences. And I have an art degree. Figure that shit out. :D

[ruffdaddy]

yes i watched the show...and at no point where the speeds equal. and in no way is that considered a scientific experiment.

Generally when doing an experiment dealing with speed...you would want to measure speed.

[ruffdaddy]

Nice non answer there pal. I managed to completely derail your position and insult you in a few sentences. And I have an art degree. Figure that shit out. :D

No you managed to convince your self that you derailed my position, and you assume anything you say woudl ever insult me.

But what can i expect...you're an art major.

[Nate]

Look...I agree that thrust is much more powerful than an ordinary treadmill. But if the plane is progressing forward, then the speeds are not equal are they? So the speed will just increase infinitely.

And I'm only talking to nate like that cause he's a prick.
I may be a prick, but I am correct and you are just digging yourself further and further in to cementing your status as a world class dumbass. But thanks for entertaining me for a few minutes.

Back to my bean counting and chaning the world!

[ruffdaddy]

I may be a prick, but I am correct and you are just digging yourself further and further in to cementing your status as a world class dumbass. But thanks for entertaining me for a few minutes.

Back to my bean counting and chaning the world!

a cunt and a prick at the same time. And you still think you're right...oh lord to have such a simple understand of such a complex scenario...

[jluv]

Look...I agree that thrust is much more powerful than an ordinary treadmill. But if the plane is progressing forward, then the speeds are not equal are they?


Yes, if the plane is progressing forward and the treadmill matches that speed, they are indeed equal. Remember, the treadmill is matching the speed of the airplane itself, not the speed of the wheels.

[ruffdaddy]

Yes, if the plane is progressing forward and the treadmill matches that speed, they are indeed equal. Remember, the treadmill is matching the speed of the airplane itself, not the speed of the wheels.

once again it goes back to perception....you can't directly compare linear speed and rotational speed.

[Nate]

Wonder if I could buy Jose an Irish Car Bomb to change ruffdaddy's avatar to this... :D

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u16/nbh4112/POAT.gif

[BLAKE]

No you managed to convince your self that you derailed my position, and you assume anything you say woudl ever insult me.

But what can i expect...you're an art major.

You have yet to effectively refute friction in plane's wheel bearings vs. thrust. I'm sure there is a point at which the wheel bearings fail, lock up, and cause a bad day for the plane, but long before that point, the thing is airborne, and the captain is pointing out the Grand Canyon out of the port side windows.

Correction: Was an art major. Now I'm an Arteest!

[jluv]

yes i watched the show...and at no point where the speeds equal. and in no way is that considered a scientific experiment.

Generally when doing an experiment dealing with speed...you would want to measure speed.


If you would have watched the show then you would know they did not go with an ordinary home treadmill like you said earlier. It just wasn't long enough to prove anything (except that the plane moves forward, which is all most of us really need to know). They did indeed measure the speeds at which the plane needed to go to take off. Then they MATCHED it, and the plane still took off. In the full scale version, the "treadmill" they used even exceeded the speed of the plane by quite a bit, and it still took off without a hitch. If you watched it, you did not pay very close attention.

[jluv]

once again it goes back to perception....you can't directly compare linear speed and rotational speed.

That is my point exactly. You seem to be basing your argument off of the treadmill matching the wheel speed. That's not how it is worded. And it's not about perception either. The original question says that the treadmill measures the plane's speed and matches it. It does not say that the treadmill goes fast enough to cancel the plane's speed (which would be WAY more than matching it) or that it matches the speed of the wheels. Plane geos 1 mph, treamdill goes 1 mph. Plane goes 50 mph, treadmill goes 50 mph. Plane goes 200 mph, treadmill goes 200 mph. By then, the plane is in the air.

[ruffdaddy]

If you would have watched the show then you would know they did not go with an ordinary home treadmill like you said earlier. It just wasn't long enough to prove anything (except that the plane moves forward, which is all most of us really need to know). They did indeed measure the speeds at which the plane needed to go to take off. Then they MATCHED it, and the plane still took off. In the full scale version, the "treadmill" they used even exceeded the speed of the plane by quite a bit, and it still took off without a hitch. If you watched it, you did not pay very close attention.

Obviously we're beating a dead horse. Nobodies opinion is going to change, and we don't even see the question the same.

[Nate]

a cunt and a prick at the same time. And you still think you're right...oh lord to have such a simple understand of such a complex scenario...
And when you can't prove your arguments/point in a debate you resort to name calling as a last resort to prove yourself. Keep it up, it's fun to read!

[BLAKE]

Obviously we're beating a dead horse. Nobodies opinion is going to change, and we don't even see the question the same.


That is a graceful way to admit defeat. Bravo.

[jluv]

Obviously we're beating a dead horse. Nobodies opinion is going to change, and we don't even see the question the same.

I see the question as it is written. Just in case you want to read it again, here it is:

"A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?"

There is a different version out there that says the treadmill matches wheel speed, but that's just a mistranslation from the original, and is not what we're arguing, including the guys at Mythbusters.

[Lason]

once again it goes back to perception....you can't directly compare linear speed and rotational speed.

OK your first problem is you are reading into this way too hard. Look at the basics and go from there. What speed does the plane need to take off? That is the magic speed that provides enough speed to provide the needed airflow over the wings to create lift right?

THAT is the speed the treadmill needs to be at to make this whole question work right?

OK now in the case of last nights expirement the truck did meet the same speed the plane needed in the opposite direction, hence the myth was busted. Please just accept the fact you read into it too much and over thought it and were wrong.

[67camino]

The speed of the wheels does not matter. Because a plane does not use wheel speed as propultion to make the plane fly. In fact the wheels dont even have to move if the plane has enough power to overcome the drag it will still take off with out the wheels even rolling. The wheels were rolling on the tread mill at 50mph at take off but the plane was only moving at 25mph and that is normal take off speed for that plane.

[360 Notch]

just to be a dick to all the rocket scientists on here...


A plane will not take off if there is no lift.
Lift requires air to move over the wings at a certian speed.
Air speed is the measure of air past a planes wings.
Airspeed equals air moving over wings.


now.


if a real plane is on a real treadmill... not some bs tarp and innacurrate truck mess

if the treadmill MATCHES the planes forward movement with an EQUAL and OPPOSITE movement then the plane will have NO FORWARD MOVEMENT.

If a plane has NO FORWARD MOVEMENT then the only air that will pass the wings of the plane is the ambient wind speed and any added wind from the prop of the plane.

If the ambient (ground wind) and propeller thrust over the wings is not an equal or higher to the ammount of wind required to creat lift of the airplane.

THE PLANE WILL NOT TAKE OFF.

In this bunch of non-controlled, inacurrate test methods with incorrect speed matching, the airplane was not motionless because the "treadmill speed" DID NOT EQUAL the "planes rolling speed"

the plane moved forward 80 something feet verifying the fact that the treadmill did not match the planes forward movement.

so obviously when the plane moved forward it created lift.

the test is wrong.


this shit is simple physics. Dont believe everything you see on tv.

[jluv]

if the treadmill MATCHES the planes forward movement with an EQUAL and OPPOSITE movement then the plane will have NO FORWARD MOVEMENT.

That statement is 100% incorrect. I wish there was some magic wake up button I could press for you guys that just don't get it.

[Nate]

That statement is 100% incorrect. I wish there was some magic wake up button I could press for you guys that just don't get it.
http://www.oculuspress.com/picture$512

[Juiceweezl]

http://www.oculuspress.com/picture$512
LMAO Nice, Nate.

[Lason]

just to be a dick to all the rocket scientists on here...


A plane will not take off if there is no lift.
Lift requires air to move over the wings at a certian speed.
Air speed is the measure of air past a planes wings.
Airspeed equals air moving over wings.


now.


if a real plane is on a real treadmill... not some bs tarp and innacurrate truck mess

if the treadmill MATCHES the planes forward movement with an EQUAL and OPPOSITE movement then the plane will have NO FORWARD MOVEMENT.

If a plane has NO FORWARD MOVEMENT then the only air that will pass the wings of the plane is the ambient wind speed and any added wind from the prop of the plane.

If the ambient (ground wind) and propeller thrust over the wings is not an equal or higher to the ammount of wind required to creat lift of the airplane.

THE PLANE WILL NOT TAKE OFF.

In this bunch of non-controlled, inacurrate test methods with incorrect speed matching, the airplane was not motionless because the "treadmill speed" DID NOT EQUAL the "planes rolling speed"

the plane moved forward 80 something feet verifying the fact that the treadmill did not match the planes forward movement.

so obviously when the plane moved forward it created lift.

the test is wrong.


this shit is simple physics. Dont believe everything you see on tv.

LOL, and the award for the person who misses the whole point goes to................................................ ..

[Nate]

LMAO Nice, Nate.
It was my one humerous post of the week...whew only have to make it through til friday now!

[8mpg]

I guess planes just have wheels for looks then. In that case you're absolutely right. Thank you for opening my eyes to the world of physics.

The point of the wheels on a plane is to help the body hover over the ground..thats it (ok and when it lands, the brakes come into effect).

[AL P]

The point of wheelspeed versus the speed of the body of the plane is a valid one. It does come down to how the question was asked.

But if you are talking about the speed of the body of the plane, it will take off.

[8mpg]

The point of wheelspeed versus the speed of the body of the plane is a valid one. It does come down to how the question was asked.

But if you are talking about the speed of the body of the plane, it will take off.

It shouldnt really matter...the whole point of the damn question was will a plane take off of a treadmill...not will the wheel speed match the treadmill speed. People are arguing for the sakes of arguing.

[Chuck]

If the treadmill matches the speed of the plane......the plane flies.

If the treadmill matches the speed of the wheels......the plane files.

If the plane's wheels match the speed of the treadmill....the plane does not fly.


But as the original question was asked....the plane flies.

[jluv]

If the treadmill matches the speed of the plane......the plane flies.

Yep.

If the treadmill matches the speed of the wheels......the plane files.

If the plane's wheels match the speed of the treadmill....the plane does not fly.

That's the same scenario. Matching is matching. Although, with normal thrust applied, the plane would move forward and the wheel speed and treadmill would no longer be matching, which fucks up the whole question if it is asked that way.


But as the original question was asked....the plane flies.

Yep.

[Chuck]

That's the same scenario. Matching is matching. Although, with normal thrust applied, the plane would move forward and the wheel speed and treadmill would no longer be matching, which fucks up the whole question if it is asked that way.


Actually it's different. The plane's wheels matching the speed of a treadmill is not the same as the treadmill matching the speed of the planes wheels. One is dependent on the speed of the treadmill and the other is dependent on the speed of the plane.

I know what you're saying, I was just covering the 3 different ways I've seen people interpret/misinterpret the question.

[jluv]

Actually it's different. The plane's wheels matching the speed of a treadmill is not the same as the treadmill matching the speed of the planes wheels. One is dependent on the speed of the treadmill and the other is dependent on the speed of the plane.

I know what you're saying, I was just covering the 3 different ways I've seen people interpret/misinterpret the question.


Obviously it's different if the treadmill matches the wheels vs the treadmill matching the plane, but how is it different if the treadmill matches the wheels or the wheels match the treadmill?

[SS Junk]

I wonder how much a Boeing 747 driveshaft costs? :confused:

I may be a prick,
And I'm a bigger prick. WHAT NOW!

[exlude]

Why is this still being debated. It all has to do with the way the question is perceived.

If the wheel speed is matched exactly, the plane is motionless. While the plane is on the ground, the speed measured is land speed. If the net land speed is 0, there is no fluid flow over the wings. Just because the power is not applied to the wheels does not mean that the speed is not measured at the wheels, or relative to the ground.

If you really think it will take off, answer me this: What is the plane's land speed if the wheels' speed is matched exactly by a treadmill?

And secondly: Can a plane take off without fluid flow over the airfoils?

First, the only way that the wheel speed can match the treadmill speed is if a) both are motionless or b) no thrust is being applied. Otherwise the situation makes no physical sense.

Secondly, it's funny that you phrase the problem in reference to wheelspeed (i.e. rotational speed) but then go on to question the plane's land speed. Pick one and maybe it will clear up for you!

[exlude]

I guess planes just have wheels for looks then. In that case you're absolutely right. Thank you for opening my eyes to the world of physics.

They have wheels as friction modifiers.

[exlude]

Look...I agree that thrust is much more powerful than an ordinary treadmill. But if the plane is progressing forward, then the speeds are not equal are they? So the speed will just increase infinitely.

And I'm only talking to nate like that cause he's a prick.

Wrong, because the treadmill has no effect on the mass of the plane. All the treadmill can act on is the wheels via friction. It cannot sizeably work against the mass of the plane like thrust can.

Plane forward at 100mph. Treadmill backward at 100mph. Wheels at 200mph (give or take for friction inefficiencies).

[exlude]

yes i watched the show...and at no point where the speeds equal. and in no way is that considered a scientific experiment.

Generally when doing an experiment dealing with speed...you would want to measure speed.

Wrong, the very first experiment with the remote control airplane showed:

airplane speed < treadmill speed
airplane speed = treadmill speed
airplane speed > treadmill speed

We saw all three in that one experiment.

[slow55]

It was my one humerous post of the week...whew only have to make it through til friday now!
You're such a prick.. :D

[Magnus]

It didn't really fly. They announced it on snopes.com that it was a combination of camera angles and cgi to make it appear it really flew. In reality, they didn't get to successfully complete the test because of the rips in the "treadmil".


























j/k

[360 Notch]

hell a 747 would fly on a tread mill.....if it were long enough and the tread mill didnt go faster than the planes airspeed.



I get the point jackass. Just making sure people understand why.

it has nothing to do with a treadmill, forward motion is the answer.

[360 Notch]

That statement is 100% incorrect. I wish there was some magic wake up button I could press for you guys that just don't get it.



you are a fool.

go back to school. you fail.

[Fox466]

I'm sure you get people that look at you like this all the time when you "know" what you are talking about. I mean you do know everything you need to in the real world right?

http://www.hantak.com/images/picard.jpg

You know what's freaking sad? Everyone saw the show, and saw that it took off, yet that dolt is still arguing against it. And after seeing three or four posts of his making that arguement, I did exactly what is pictured.

Fuck... :rolleyes:

[Fox466]

So friction doesn't exist huh? Neither does rolling resistance I guess.

At this point the only friction left in this equation is between your ears, McEngineer...

[Nate]

At this point the only friction left in this equation is between your ears, McEngineer...
LMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

McEngineer lol...

and 360notch...you fail, you should go back to school.

[Zarathustra]

LMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

McEngineer lol...

and 360notch...you fail, you should go back to school.


You're a god damn idiot, with no argument skills whatsoever. Go watch some grass grow or watch some paint dry, that's about all you're good for, dolt.

[Nate]

You're a god damn idiot, with no argument skills whatsoever. Go watch some grass grow or watch some paint dry, that's about all you're good for, dolt.
Again with the childish insults. Everything I've said in all previous threads have been repeated, shown in experiments, proven with physics in videos etc. If you have any theories or proof as to why I am wrong please provide them in a logical sense and any number of people could show you why you are wrong (again). But you will continue using your last defense tactic of name calling etc instead of supporting your reason OR showing why I am in correct in my assumptions.

When you want to have an adult debate please come back without the insult and show scientific proof/theories of why you disagree. But I doubt you do that and come back (or ruffdaddy etc) with the you are wrong dick/prick/cunt etc.

[8mpg]

You know what's freaking sad? Everyone saw the show, and saw that it took off, yet that dolt is still arguing against it. And after seeing three or four posts of his making that arguement, I did exactly what is pictured.

Fuck... :rolleyes:

the fact you did what the picture did made me laugh :D

[01WhiteCobra]

LMAO! ruffdaddy proves once again what a total fucking moron he really is.

Dear lord, hopefully, after you receive your engineering degree, you will be designing toys for children in the 3 and under category. They may actually appreciate your engineering talents.

[slow55]

you fuckers still arguing about this. Whats it matter if the damn thing flew of not? Untill I get on a plane at dfw and they pull out onto a big ass conveyor I'm not going to worry about it. The only thing I am wondering is if Kari is as much of a freank in bed as I think she is?

[jluv]

you are a fool.

go back to school. you fail.


I'd be willing to bet that your own stupidity will end up killing you someday. Hell, I'm surprised you are even able to power up your computer. Wait, I bet someone did it for you, didn't they?

[Chuck]

Obviously it's different if the treadmill matches the wheels vs the treadmill matching the plane, but how is it different if the treadmill matches the wheels or the wheels match the treadmill?


Say the treadmill moves 50 mph....if the wheels match the threadmill, then the wheels will match that 50 mph. The plane won't fly regardless if you focus on rotational speed of the wheels or directional speed of wheels/plane.

Same senario at 200 mph....plane will fly if you're interpreting speed as directional but won't fly if you're interpreting speed as rotational speed of wheels.

So, if you word it as wheels match the treadmill, the plane's ability to take off is dependent on the speed of the treadmill.

Original question is not worded that way, but I see people base their arguments on these facts. They would be correct if the question was worded that way, but it's not.

As the question is originally stated, the plane will fly.

[Fox466]

the fact you did what the picture did made me laugh :D

It was kind of funny, in that I did it and then there the pic was in the next couple of posts.

Sadly, I can't say that I'm surprised in the least that some of these dolts are still arguing the already proven...

[jluv]

Say the treadmill moves 50 mph....if the wheels match the threadmill, then the wheels will match that 50 mph. The plane won't fly regardless if you focus on rotational speed of the wheels or directional speed of wheels/plane.

Same senario at 200 mph....plane will fly if you're interpreting speed as directional but won't fly if you're interpreting speed as rotational speed of wheels.

So, if you word it as wheels match the treadmill, the plane's ability to take off is dependent on the speed of the treadmill.

Original question is not worded that way, but I see people base their arguments on these facts. They would be correct if the question was worded that way, but it's not.

As the question is originally stated, the plane will fly.

No, no. I totally understand that if the treadmill and wheel speed match, then the plane will sit still. This could really only happen, by the way, if the plane did not apply any real thrust. There are actually versions of the question online that talk about the treadmill matching the wheel speed and not the plane speed, but the orginal question dealt with the treadmill matching the plane's speed, not the wheel speed, in which case we both agree that it would take off.

What I'm asking you is to explain how there is a difference between the treadmill matching the wheels and the wheels matching the treadmill. Earlier you said this:

"If the treadmill matches the speed of the wheels......the plane files."

And then this:

"If the plane's wheels match the speed of the treadmill....the plane does not fly."

That's like saying red and blue makes purple, but blue and red does not make purple.

[Fox466]

If the plane does not apply thrust, the wheels never move, consequently that version is null.

If the plane applies thrust, the thrust overcomes any friction exerted by the rotation of the wheels. The belt is nothing but a multiplier of rotation. It can't stop the wind. It just can't.

It's not that freaking difficult. Wow.

[Chuck]

What I'm asking you is to explain how there is a difference between the treadmill matching the wheels and the wheels matching the treadmill. Earlier you said this:

"If the treadmill matches the speed of the wheels......the plane files."

And then this:

"If the plane's wheels match the speed of the treadmill....the plane does not fly."

That's like saying red and blue makes purple, but blue and red does not make purple.


OK, I see why the confusion. My interpretation of "speed of the wheels" is directional, not rotational.

So yes, if it's rotaional speed, you're right. It's the same thing basically.

If it's directional speed, then the speed of the wheels matching the treadmill is dependent on the threadmill spinning fast enough for the plane to fly.

[Juiceweezl]

If the plane does not apply thrust, the wheels never move, consequently that version is null.

If the plane applies thrust, the thrust overcomes any friction exerted by the rotation of the wheels. The belt is nothing but a multiplier of rotation. It can't stop the wind. It just can't.

It's not that freaking difficult. Wow.
Actually, if the plane does not apply thrust, the wheels will never move (you are correct there), but the plane will go backwards. Gravity/mass will lock it to the conveyor belt. If the plane applies just enough thrust to match the speed of the treadmill (not match numerically, but match in terms of creating enough thrust to hold the plane in one spot on the treadmill), then it will be just like riding an exercise bike. As more thrust is applied, the plane will move forward and fly UNLESS the treadmill can supply enough speed to continue counteracting force created by the thrust. This is physically impossible since you cannot build a treadmill with infinite speed nor do you have wheel bearings that will stand up to the speed it would take. So, the plane will fly everytime in the experiment. Hypothetically, you can state that conditions can be present that the plane will stay stationary to its ground position on the treadmill.

[jluv]

Actually, if the plane does not apply thrust, the wheels will never move (you are correct there), but the plane will go backwards. Gravity/mass will lock it to the conveyor belt. If the plane applies just enough thrust to match the speed of the treadmill (not match numerically, but match in terms of creating enough thrust to hold the plane in one spot on the treadmill), then it will be just like riding an exercise bike. As more thrust is applied, the plane will move forward and fly UNLESS the treadmill can supply enough speed to continue counteracting force created by the thrust. This is physically impossible since you cannot build a treadmill with infinite speed nor do you have wheel bearings that will stand up to the speed it would take. So, the plane will fly everytime in the experiment. .

Yes.

Hypothetically, you can state that conditions can be present that the plane will stay stationary to its ground position on the treadmill.

Only if we're talking about the treadmill (somehow) matching the wheel speed. If it matches the plane's speed, as in the original question, there is nothing entered into that equation that would even suggest that the plane could not move forward.

[SS Junk]

Jesus tittyfucking Christ the all of you need to end yourselves for arguing this shit once again.

[360 Notch]

if ground speed equals airspeed it will not fly even with the thrust devices on.

if the wheel speed equals the ground speed consistantly it will not fly with the thrust devices on.

if the plane is put on a tread mill and allowed to over come the ground speed and have an airspeed higher than the ground speed, when the airspeed equals that whichh is necessary for the plane to gain lift it will fly. (in this secenerio the plane moves forward on the treadmill).

[jluv]

if ground speed equals airspeed it will not fly even with the thrust devices on.

if the wheel speed equals the ground speed consistantly it will not fly with the thrust devices on.

if the plane is put on a tread mill and allowed to over come the ground speed and have an airspeed higher than the ground speed, when the airspeed equals that whichh is necessary for the plane to gain lift it will fly. (in this secenerio the plane moves forward on the treadmill).

You sound like you've confused yourself! LMGDAO!!!

[Andrew]

wait...if the planes going 210, and the treadmills going 210...hows the plane moving at all?

The plane takes off because while the plane moves at 210 mph and the treadmill moves at 210 mph, the wheels are moving at 420 mph net speed.

[Nate]

The plane takes off because while the plane moves at 210 mph and the treadmill moves at 210 mph, the wheels are moving at 420 mph net speed.
What's this logical approach you are applying. It seems simple to understand but ruffdaddy does not quite grasp it.

[Andrew]

What's this logical approach you are applying. It seems simple to understand but ruffdaddy does not quite grasp it.

It's something called "Physics"

[notchnate]

There has to be air rushing under the wings for lift! period. haha

[Nate]

It's something called "Physics"
Oh is that what it is? Because I only have a basic understanding of it. The McEngineer greatly graps these concepts and calls me a moron... I am so confused.

[jluv]

There has to be air rushing under the wings for lift! period. haha

Oh good grief!

[Fox466]

Actually, if the plane does not apply thrust, the wheels will never move (you are correct there), but the plane will go backwards. Gravity/mass will lock it to the conveyor belt. If the plane applies just enough thrust to match the speed of the treadmill (not match numerically, but match in terms of creating enough thrust to hold the plane in one spot on the treadmill), then it will be just like riding an exercise bike. As more thrust is applied, the plane will move forward and fly UNLESS the treadmill can supply enough speed to continue counteracting force created by the thrust. This is physically impossible since you cannot build a treadmill with infinite speed nor do you have wheel bearings that will stand up to the speed it would take. So, the plane will fly everytime in the experiment. Hypothetically, you can state that conditions can be present that the plane will stay stationary to its ground position on the treadmill.

Nope. The plane has to move first, which is implied by the equation stating that the belt has to match the planes speed. As such, no thrust is ever applied, which means that the belt never has any speed to match, which means I win... :D

[slow55]

I want to know if the plane can land on a conveyor?

[SS Junk]

I want to know if the plane can land on a conveyor?
No... and you'll get fifty different answers with stupidasses over analyzing the question and getting lost in their own tangled reasoning as to why it's not possible.

[line-em-up]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4owlyCOzDiE

Son of a bitch.

That guy didn't do it right. He made the point about the belt not being able to prevent the plane from going forward. He never proved that it would take off because it never did. The riddle assumes the fact that the conveyor belt could equal any forward movement the plane makes, thus keeping it from moving forward (his conveyor belt couldn't do that). If it can't move forward, then it can't get any airspeed (assuming zero wind speed), so it won't generate lift.

Instead of a conveyor belt, just chain the plane to a pole. It will do the same thing as the perfect conveyor belt.

[notchnate]

I want to know if the plane can land on a conveyor?

hmm thats a good one, I think that could work... :)

[exlude]

That guy didn't do it right. He made the point about the belt not being able to prevent the plane from going forward. He never proved that it would take off because it never did. The riddle assumes the fact that the conveyor belt could equal any forward movement the plane makes, thus keeping it from moving forward (his conveyor belt couldn't do that). If it can't move forward, then it can't get any airspeed (assuming zero wind speed), so it won't generate lift.

Instead of a conveyor belt, just chain the plane to a pole. It will do the same thing as the perfect conveyor belt.

I'm not going to describe it anymore, so I'll just politely tell you how wrong you are.

OMG you're so wrong.

[Fox466]

I want to know if the plane can land on a conveyor?

No. In order to do that the conveyor would have to move at a speed equal to the wheels speed at impact and be the standard required distance for said plane to stop. Which will never happen as no belt is capable of that feat.

[slow55]

No... and you'll get fifty different answers with stupidasses over analyzing the question and getting lost in their own tangled reasoning as to why it's not possible.
Well if the damn thing can take off on a conveyor it should be able to land on one too!! If a plane can take off and land on a runway and take off and land on a ship then it should be able to land on a damn conveyor.

[360 Notch]

this thread is much cheaper than going to my shrink.... i feel so much better jacking with you guys.


btw, no forward motion equals no lift equals no flight.

[Futurama]

this thread sucks so hard i was asked to post in it.


http://www.californiaclassics.nl/images/ford/thunderbird-1975-02-01.jpg i wonder if a tbird would take off on a treadmill.

[Nate]

btw, no forward motion equals no lift equals no flight.
Not one single person is arguing this point. The plane will move forward in the original question.

[SS Junk]

Well if the damn thing can take off on a conveyor it should be able to land on one too!! If a plane can take off and land on a runway and take off and land on a ship then it should be able to land on a damn conveyor.
I wasn't answering seriously. Of course it will. Just like it'll take off.
An airplane and flight relies on the interaction of the body of the plane and it’s propulsion system with the air and has little to do with the ground. This of course doesn't take into account the wheels may burn up going twice the speed, but that is not a part of the equation.

[line-em-up]

I'm not going to describe it anymore, so I'll just politely tell you how wrong you are.

OMG you're so wrong.

Okay, now that you've exspressed your OPINION, at least provide me with a link where you spelled it out. You may be right, but you have to convince me first.

[exlude]

Nah, that's not an opinion. The fact that it will fly is, well, a fact.
http://dfwstangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=350644&highlight=treadmill

That thread has some good discussion, as well as the original one from this board.
The matter of fact remains, the treadmill cannot quantifiably affect the forward motion of the plane...

[kenny c]

Ok... I watched the youtube vid on the first page and I didn't see the plane fly... I don't have sound, so what am I missing?

[exlude]

Ok... I watched the youtube vid on the first page and I didn't see the plane fly... I don't have sound, so what am I missing?

The point is, if the plane can so much as move forward against a treadmill that is traveling faster than it then obviously, given a longer treadmill, the plane would fly.

[kenny c]

The point is, if the plane can so much as move forward against a treadmill that is traveling faster than it then obviously, given a longer treadmill, the plane would fly.


It seems like your basing that on wheel speed vs travel speed of the conveyor, but not equating thrust... Granted, I'm an idiot but if the thrust were to be equal to that of the relative speed of the belt, then wouldn't those two cancel each other? Thrust and wheel speed do not equate equally, right? (or is this more proof that I'm in an idiot :o )

With that said... the thrust makes the plane take off no matter what.. right? I honestly don't know, but my pilot friend said it wouldn't take off, so I argued with him that it would just to argue...

[exlude]

It seems like your basing that on wheel speed vs travel speed of the conveyor, but not equating thrust... Granted, I'm an idiot but if the thrust were to be equal to that of the relative speed of the belt, then wouldn't those two cancel each other? Thrust and wheel speed do not equate equally, right? (or is this more proof that I'm in an idiot :o )

With that said... the thrust makes the plane take off no matter what.. right? I honestly don't know, but my pilot friend said it wouldn't take off, so I argued with him that it would just to argue...

I'm not sure what you meant by "thrust and wheel speed do not equate equally."

Anyway, it's an argument of aircraft speed vs. belt speed. Not of wheel speed. But yes, the thrust makes the plane take off no matter what. The belt could be sitting still, traveling the opposite speed of the plane, traveling the same speed of the plane, traveling 100x the speed of the plane in the opposite direction...given the wheels don't melt, the plane will take off.

[67camino]

What if you had a plane on skis, and it was on a river that you could control the flow rate. Point it upstream, would it take off. :D

[line-em-up]

What if you had a plane on skis, and it was on a river that you could control the flow rate. Point it upstream, would it take off. :D

That's a good way to put it. I was trying to come up with an analogy, but I was thinking about a block of ice. I've been thinking about it and I think I've changed my mind. I still believe that IF the conveyor belt could move enough to counteract any forward movement of the plane, then it will never fly. However, that conveyor could never exist because there isn't enough friction between the plane and belt to hold it back. Just like if you push a heavy object on an icy road, it is easy to overcome the friction. The plane's thrust can easily overcome any friction that the belt might have. For that reason, I now say the plane could take off.

[Stevo]

jesus christ... The play will always move forward and gain speed. The conveyor belt could have turned 1000mph backwards and the plane will ALWAYS move forward and gain speed. The wheels would just spin 1000mph in reverse, but the plane still moves forward. It's not that hard of a concept

Pretty sure the wheels wouldn't be able to handle that speed, bearings and tires would fail and the plane would come to a halt.

Every person that has said the plane would fly has ignored the wheel/landing gear variable in the equation. The test on Mythbusters was flawed because the conveyor's speed never varied as described in the original question.

Also, it wasn't an airplane, it was an ultralight. :D

Stevo

[jluv]

Pretty sure the wheels wouldn't be able to handle that speed, bearings and tires would fail and the plane would come to a halt.

Every person that has said the plane would fly has ignored the wheel/landing gear variable in the equation. The test on Mythbusters was flawed because the conveyor's speed never varied as described in the original question.

Also, it wasn't an airplane, it was an ultralight. :D

Stevo

Those are all very weak points. It's already been stated several times throughout these threads that the wheels and tires would fail eventually, so no one ignored that. Assumptions have to be made that the wheels/tires would somehow withstand the heat and that the treadmill itself is as long as a normal runway.

The test on Mythbusters wasn't flawed. The "treadmill" travelled as fast or faster than the speed of the plane and proved that while doing so the plane could still move forward and take off.

It was an airplane. Ultralight, jet, whatever - it's still an airplane.

[Stevo]

Those are all very weak points. It's already been stated several times throughout these threads that the wheels and tires would fail eventually, so no one ignored that. Assumptions have to be made that the wheels/tires would somehow withstand the heat and that the treadmill itself is as long as a normal runway.

Actually, if it is a known that the wheels will not handle the speed, then the discussion would end there. If we are going to take physics out of the equation then there is no reason to have the discussion.

The test on Mythbusters wasn't flawed. The "treadmill" travelled as fast or faster than the speed of the plane and proved that while doing so the plane could still move forward and take off.

The speed was held slightly above the supposed takeoff speed of the ultralight, it was never varied.

It was an airplane. Ultralight, jet, whatever - it's still an airplane.

An ultralight with a takeoff speed or ~30 mph is a far cry from a jet plane that needs 150+ mph. An ultralight can handle (as seen on Mythbusters) a ground speed of 60 mph, doubtful a jet plane's landing gear and wheels can handle double the required landing speed.

Regardless, the question is too vague and has too many open variables, and is presented only to make people argue. :)

Stevo

[jluv]

Actually, if it is a known that the wheels will not handle the speed, then the discussion would end there. If we are going to take physics out of the equation then there is no reason to have the discussion.


It's all about hypothetical situations. Is there really a giant treadmill out there that a jet could take off from? The assumption has to be made that the wheels/tires could function as they were designed to without failing. You also have to assume that the treadmill is long enough. If you can't "imagine" those two things then you aren't really qualified to answer the questions anyway. Everyone knows that the wheels/tires would fail eventually. It was not ignored.


The speed was held slightly above the supposed takeoff speed of the ultralight, it was never varied.

And? That doesn't change anything.


An ultralight with a takeoff speed or ~30 mph is a far cry from a jet plane that needs 150+ mph. An ultralight can handle (as seen on Mythbusters) a ground speed of 60 mph, doubtful a jet plane's landing gear and wheels can handle double the required landing speed.

Same principal. But you're going back to the landing gear handling capabilities again, which isn't relevant. If you have read the threads about this you have seen it acknowledged several times already that the wheels/tires would fail. Try to get past that if you can.

[Stevo]

The assumption has to be made that the wheels/tires could function as they were designed to without failing.


Ahhh, there is the issue. If a wheel/landing gear fails because it was pushed beyond the designed usage then it has functioned as designed.

The wheels/tires of all aircraft have a rating of the speed they can handle at landing/take-off, all of the people that say to ignore the wheels/gear are asking them to work above and beyond how they were designed. I am not saying that the gear will eventually fail, I am saying that, if the manufacturer puts the T/O speed at 100 mph, the ground speed limit at 125 mph, and the gear fail point at 150 mph, you are not going to be able to get a 200 mph ground speed because of the limits of the fear (and yes these numbers were pulled from my ass, just to give examples).

You might as well be asking for the wings to instantly generate twice the lift of the engines to miraculously double in power at will, if you choose to ignore the obvious limits (set by the manufactures) of the tires/wheels/landing gear.


Stevo

[jluv]

Ahhh, there is the issue. If a wheel/landing gear fails because it was pushed beyond the designed usage then it has functioned as designed.

The wheels/tires of all aircraft have a rating of the speed they can handle at landing/take-off, all of the people that say to ignore the wheels/gear are asking them to work above and beyond how they were designed. I am not saying that the gear will eventually fail, I am saying that, if the manufacturer puts the T/O speed at 100 mph, the ground speed limit at 125 mph, and the gear fail point at 150 mph, you are not going to be able to get a 200 mph ground speed because of the limits of the fear (and yes these numbers were pulled from my ass, just to give examples).

You might as well be asking for the wings to instantly generate twice the lift of the engines to miraculously double in power at will, if you choose to ignore the obvious limits (set by the manufactures) of the tires/wheels/landing gear.


Stevo

You just don't get it. That's okay. Some people won't. Oh well.

[Stevo]

You just don't get it. That's okay. Some people won't. Oh well.

You are correct, I don't get it how some laws of physics are supposed to be ignored and others not. Oh well. :rolleyes:

Stevo

[Chuck]

I wonder if a plane can land on a conveyor belt? :D

[exlude]

You are correct, I don't get it how some laws of physics are supposed to be ignored and others not. Oh well. :rolleyes:

Stevo

Well, in focusing on semantics and arguing just for the sake of arguing, you have missed the point of the original question. It's for simplicities sake that we discuss one portion of the physics because if you want to take everything into account the math gets insanely complicated and people cease to be able to follow.

Let's worry about this lame "varied speed" argument before we make it any harder on you ;)

[360 Notch]

lol.

just saw your sig... that was a jab at him... I think you mis understand that also.

LOl.