Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: gsellis
Negligible. There is some parasitic force on the plane because of resistance to spin in the wheels from inertia and friction. Otherwise, all force on the wheels translates to acceleration of the wheels. Remember physics where velocity is the speed along a specific vector for a period of time. Changing the vector is acceleration. F = ma. Assume mass =1 and F=a. A=dV/dt. So, just the wheels spin because that is how they work. Since they freewheel (except for that parasitic stuff), nothing on the plane allows energy the wheels store effect the plane. If you applied the brakes, then you translate the energy into heat and force on the plane, but only then.Originally posted by: KK
So are you saying the belt has zero effect on the plane? Zero, Nada, Nil?
But there is some, negligible at best, but that's all that's needed for people interpret this question in a different light. Mythbusters did it their way, but with most of the naysayers, they would say mythbusters didn't do it right per the question they heard or how they interpreted it. I don't think this is so much of a problem with physics but more to do with comprehension.
If you wanted to keep the plane stationary the treadmill would have to run at speed MUCH faster than the forward velocity of the plane. This would contradict the myth as stated. There is NO statement in the myth that says the plane will stay stationary. The only people that say this are the people that think a plane is a car with wings.
I don't believe many people actually believe that last sentence, atleast I hope not. I'd like to see the actual original myth if possible, not the version that mythbusters got handed, but the original.
The earliest dated reference to the problem is in the November 27, 2005 issue of
The Pilot's Lounge #94: It's The Medium, Manfred
http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/191034-1.html
"On a day with absolutely calm wind, a plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyor). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyor moves in the opposite direction. The conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the airplane ever take off?"
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Say, what if we had a magic river and a floatplane?
Now our floatplane pilot is tied up at the dock and he needs to take off upriver, against the current, to deliver vitamins to starving babies.
But the local horrible wicked wizard has cursed the river, because he hates bush pilots.
The cursed river always matches the forward speed of any floatplane that tries to take off against it's flow.
Will our heroic bush pilot ever be able to take off and save the babies?
Yes, my friends, he will.
Why?
Because the floats provide a low friction surface for the plane, just like wheels do on a regular plane, and skis do on a plane that takes off on snow/ice.
The wheel bearings, the floats, and the skis all do the same thing.
They basically disconnect the plane from the surface it's resting on.
They make it very diffcult for that surface to impede their forward speed.
Originally posted by: Chronoshock
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: Chronoshock
Can we please get back to talking about the foam?
if you stuffed a large trout with a-b foam and slapped somebody, it would hurt like a mofo. I would daresay you could break a guy's face with it.
How about we have jamie and adam do this one?
<mythbusters voice>
If you stuff a large trout with A-B foam and slapped somebody with it, does the trout exert enough force to break the facial bones?
</mythbusters voice>
Could the trout contain the expansion or would it just sort of ooze out of its mouth?
If it contained it, then it would be stiff enough to break bones given the right amount of force, otherwise no
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Say, what if we had a magic river and a floatplane?
Now our floatplane pilot is tied up at the dock and he needs to take off upriver, against the current, to deliver vitamins to starving babies.
But the local horrible wicked wizard has cursed the river, because he hates bush pilots.
The cursed river always matches the forward speed of any floatplane that tries to take off against it's flow.
Will our heroic bush pilot ever be able to take off and save the babies?
Yes, my friends, he will.
Why?
Because the floats provide a low friction surface for the plane, just like wheel bearings do on a regular plane, and skis do on a plane that takes off on snow/ice.
The wheel bearings, the floats, and the skis all do the same thing.
They basically disconnect the plane from the surface it's resting on.
They make it very diffcult for that surface to impede their forward speed.
Originally posted by: Chronoshock
Can we please get back to talking about the foam?
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: Chronoshock
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: Chronoshock
Can we please get back to talking about the foam?
if you stuffed a large trout with a-b foam and slapped somebody, it would hurt like a mofo. I would daresay you could break a guy's face with it.
How about we have jamie and adam do this one?
<mythbusters voice>
If you stuff a large trout with A-B foam and slapped somebody with it, does the trout exert enough force to break the facial bones?
</mythbusters voice>
Could the trout contain the expansion or would it just sort of ooze out of its mouth?
If it contained it, then it would be stiff enough to break bones given the right amount of force, otherwise no
You would put enough in so that it oozes out of the mouth a little, but not to the point where the trout explodes.
If the trout were fairly fresh, would the soft fleshi-ness of the trout cushion the impact enough to prevent serious damage?
Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124
Alright. I'll try and be civilized.
A treadmill can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop an airplane from moving.
Wrong.
Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124
Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124
Alright. I'll try and be civilized.
A treadmill can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop an airplane from moving.
Wrong.
Wrong. Show me proof.
The treadmill would have to be moving at like, e, for it to make a difference at which point the wheels would burst and the plane would be plunged into an alternate dimension.
If you had a really crappy plane with poorly maintained wheels/barrings that could barely take off on a normal runway
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: FoBoT
no one has ever been "salmon slapped"
it is definetly "trout slapped"
now if you need to chop down a large tree, then you need a herring
but for slapping the sense back into someone, always use a trout
thank you.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: FoBoT
no one has ever been "salmon slapped"
it is definetly "trout slapped"
now if you need to chop down a large tree, then you need a herring
but for slapping the sense back into someone, always use a trout
thank you.
Sorry, but a Salmon Slap on a Treadmill is simply superior to a Trout Slap on the same Treadmill. :Q It's simple Physics, you LOSE!!!!
Originally posted by: Ns1
//edit
I am also somewhat frightened by the fact that those flour beetles or whatever can survive a nuclear holocaust.
I, for one, welcome our new flour beetle overlords.
Originally posted by: gsellis
It is not possible on paper to keep it from moving. If it is, you are doing it wrong. The problem is folks think F of belt is on the plane, when what it really does is translates to delta V on the wheels, not the airframe.Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: Nyati13
The only way the airplane would not "displace distance" is if the airplane was not trying to take off ( ie, engines were at minimum).
The myth that began all this is that a treadmill can stop an airplane that IS trying to take off. And that myth is completely false, because there is nothing a treadmill can do to stop the airplane from "displacing distance"
so you are saying that a plane not powered up on a belt moving in the reverse direction, would not start moving backwards?
Of course you are not that stupid to believe it wouldn't start moving backwards, therefore the plane is affected by the treadmill. And given that, it's possible on paper to stop the plane from moving forward.
Originally posted by: eits
no, it is possible on paper to keep it at v=0. you just have to have the treadmill going as fast as the plane in the opposite direction and, voila! equilibrium. plane won't move.
Originally posted by: cubby1223
The whole problem in these threads, is that there are two different ways to interpret the situation. One interpretation leads to the plane always flying, the other interpretation leads to the plane always staying on the ground. They are each the correct outcomes for the respective interpretations.
But the people around the internet are so bull-headed that they'll never accept even the possibility of an alternate interpretation existing than their own. :roll:
The only real nitwits are those who believe the ground / treadmill / conveyor belt, has no influence at all on the plane. Just because a conveyor belt cannot stop a jet at full engine speed, does not prove the (ground / treadmill / belt) is asserting no backwards force on the plane. This is Physics 101, people.
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: gsellis
It is not possible on paper to keep it from moving. If it is, you are doing it wrong. The problem is folks think F of belt is on the plane, when what it really does is translates to delta V on the wheels, not the airframe.Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: Nyati13
The only way the airplane would not "displace distance" is if the airplane was not trying to take off ( ie, engines were at minimum).
The myth that began all this is that a treadmill can stop an airplane that IS trying to take off. And that myth is completely false, because there is nothing a treadmill can do to stop the airplane from "displacing distance"
so you are saying that a plane not powered up on a belt moving in the reverse direction, would not start moving backwards?
Of course you are not that stupid to believe it wouldn't start moving backwards, therefore the plane is affected by the treadmill. And given that, it's possible on paper to stop the plane from moving forward.
no, it is possible on paper to keep it at v=0. you just have to have the treadmill going as fast as the plane in the opposite direction and, voila! equilibrium. plane won't move.
Originally posted by: cubby1223
The whole problem in these threads, is that there are two different ways to interpret the situation. One interpretation leads to the plane always flying, the other interpretation leads to the plane always staying on the ground. They are each the correct outcomes for the respective interpretations.
But the people around the internet are so bull-headed that they'll never accept even the possibility of an alternate interpretation existing than their own. :roll:
The only real nitwits are those who believe the ground / treadmill / conveyor belt, has no influence at all on the plane. Just because a conveyor belt cannot stop a jet at full engine speed, does not prove the (ground / treadmill / belt) is asserting no backwards force on the plane. This is Physics 101, people.
Originally posted by: Number1
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: gsellis
It is not possible on paper to keep it from moving. If it is, you are doing it wrong. The problem is folks think F of belt is on the plane, when what it really does is translates to delta V on the wheels, not the airframe.Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: Nyati13
The only way the airplane would not "displace distance" is if the airplane was not trying to take off ( ie, engines were at minimum).
The myth that began all this is that a treadmill can stop an airplane that IS trying to take off. And that myth is completely false, because there is nothing a treadmill can do to stop the airplane from "displacing distance"
so you are saying that a plane not powered up on a belt moving in the reverse direction, would not start moving backwards?
Of course you are not that stupid to believe it wouldn't start moving backwards, therefore the plane is affected by the treadmill. And given that, it's possible on paper to stop the plane from moving forward.
no, it is possible on paper to keep it at v=0. you just have to have the treadmill going as fast as the plane in the opposite direction and, voila! equilibrium. plane won't move.
Are you related to smackdown?
Originally posted by: cubby1223
The whole problem in these threads, is that there are two different ways to interpret the situation. One interpretation leads to the plane always flying, the other interpretation leads to the plane always staying on the ground. They are each the correct outcomes for the respective interpretations.
But the people around the internet are so bull-headed that they'll never accept even the possibility of an alternate interpretation existing than their own. :roll:
The only real nitwits are those who believe the ground / treadmill / conveyor belt, has no influence at all on the plane. Just because a conveyor belt cannot stop a jet at full engine speed, does not prove the (ground / treadmill / belt) is asserting no backwards force on the plane. This is Physics 101, people.
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: FoBoT
no one has ever been "salmon slapped"
it is definetly "trout slapped"
now if you need to chop down a large tree, then you need a herring
but for slapping the sense back into someone, always use a trout
thank you.
Sorry, but a Salmon Slap on a Treadmill is simply superior to a Trout Slap on the same Treadmill. :Q It's simple Physics, you LOSE!!!!
In the realm of internet geekdom, slaps are done with large trout. ALWAYS. Anything else would be uncivilized.
It is meant to make the reader THINK the plane is kept stationary. Brainteasers/riddles often work such a way. In actuality, it's just the opposite. The conveyor makes the wheels travel at twice their speed, but the plane still moves forward and takes off."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?"
Originally posted by: JujuFish
This was never a "myth". It was a brainteaser.
It is meant to make the reader THINK the plane is kept stationary. Brainteasers/riddles often work such a way. In actuality, it's just the opposite. The conveyor makes the wheels travel at twice their speed, but the plane still moves forward and takes off."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?"
Granted, if you could create a treadmill that could go fast enough, the small force of friction and rotational inertia in the wheels could be overcome to stop the plane's movement. That is not plausible, nor is it anything within the bounds of the BRAINTEASER.