MythBusters

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: PurdueRy


All they have to do is read the question. It makes no mention of stopping forward movement of the plane. It simply says that it goes backward at the rate the plane moves forward. So, any further assumptions are their own and WRONG.

Where may one find the original question. How do we know that what the current question is how it was originally worded.

The way it was originally worded is in the thread where I was the first to explain why the plain would take off. Within that thread, it was actually worded two different ways. One way, the plane takes off. The other way its worded leads to an impossible situation.


I'm just pleased that the mythbusters didn't screw this one up!

 

[randay]

that was pretty friggin hilarious, even teh pilot thought he wouldnt be able to move.

 

[redgtxdi]

Actually, in KK's defense........it's more a matter of semantics, or specifically, vocab!!


You see we're talking about 2 different setups and 2 different ideas.

Take note of Corcentral's original thread invoking temp-ban.......

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=38&threadid=2144731

Keyword ---------- TREADMILL!

Which automatically leads to the second problem......

Assuming a typical length treadmill relevant to the size of the plane........there is no way the sucker would take off before falling off the TREADMILL! (a la mythbuster's very first mockup w/ the RC plane)

As I had mentioned in one of the earlier threads................CREATE A SMITH MACHINE-TYPE RESTRICTOR TO PREVENT THE PLANE FROM MOVING FORWARD MORE THAN A FEW FEET AND IT SIMPLY WON'T TAKE OFF!!! Heck, you could even create a vertical exit allowing the plane to move freely once it reaches specific elevation, but it never would so it wouldn't matter.

But that's where the semantics change. This isn't about plane on a treadmill, it's about plane on a CONVEYOR BELT and OVERCOMING "TAKE-OFF SPEED ONLY!!!"

/thread

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You see, the treadmill is like blu-ray, the airplane is like HD DVD. No matter how fast Blu-Ray goes, HD DVD will still take off.

I LULzed.

 

[ViperVin2]

Nothing blew up, argh.. that ep sucked.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: ViperVin2
Nothing blew up, argh.. that ep sucked.

i beg to differ, i believe smack down's head blew up, so it was an awesome episode really.

 

[ric0chet06]

wth? I thought the plane was supposed to match the treadmills speed exactly, and see if it got lift or not. That was a major fail

 

[cubby1223]

Seriously, many of you who disagree, a treadmill / conveyor belt / whatever, does assert a force on the plane. I don't care if the wheels are free-spinning, they are not frictionless. While this concept remains in debate, there will always be disagreement amongst people over the semantics of the "myth".

The MythBusters proved the force a plane's engine creates by moving the air, can be greater than the force of the belt (or tarp) pulling the plane backwards. Nothing more.


Remember - the first small-scale experiment, with the what, 3 foot belt, they had to add a stop behind the plane so the plane would not fall off backwards. That's your proof that the treadmill asserts a force on the plane. The wheels are not frictionless.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Seriously, many of you who disagree, a treadmill / conveyor belt / whatever, does assert a force on the plane. I don't care if the wheels are free-spinning, they are not frictionless. While this concept remains in debate, there will always be disagreement amongst people over the semantics of the "myth".

The MythBusters proved the force a plane's engine creates by moving the air, can be greater than the force of the belt (or tarp) pulling the plane backwards. Nothing more.

The friction is pretty much negligible. Just like when we talk about ice skating. If you push someone on ice we pretty much negate the friction. Come on. It's just liek you can turn every physics problem from HS upside down and talk about reality vs ideality. This is ideality, and the amount of friction in your bearings is negligible compared to engine thrust. 90,000 lbs of thrust in a 777 engine?

 

[CorCentral]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Seriously, many of you who disagree, a treadmill / conveyor belt / whatever, does assert a force on the plane. I don't care if the wheels are free-spinning, they are not frictionless. While this concept remains in debate, there will always be disagreement amongst people over the semantics of the "myth".

The MythBusters proved the force a plane's engine creates by moving the air, can be greater than the force of the belt (or tarp) pulling the plane backwards. Nothing more.

So you're saying that the conveyor belt/tarp (if going fast enough), the plane would not take off? :laugh: Do you know the amounts of force/heat a bearing can take? And how many jets fly non stop flights day after day with zero problems?

Even at 4x speed, the plane would still take off. The Myth is dead/BUSTED!

I bet you could get the candy cane avatar of yours to fly before people are willing to admit they were wrong on this!

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Seriously, many of you who disagree, a treadmill / conveyor belt / whatever, does assert a force on the plane. I don't care if the wheels are free-spinning, they are not frictionless. While this concept remains in debate, there will always be disagreement amongst people over the semantics of the "myth".

The MythBusters proved the force a plane's engine creates by moving the air, can be greater than the force of the belt (or tarp) pulling the plane backwards. Nothing more.

The friction is pretty much negligible. Just like when we talk about ice skating. If you push someone on ice we pretty much negate the friction. Come on. It's just liek you can turn every physics problem from HS upside down and talk about reality vs ideality. This is ideality, and the amount of friction in your bearings is negligible compared to engine thrust. 90,000 lbs of thrust in a 777 engine?

I agree - the MythBusters showed that when you have a full size plane, any force of a conveyor belt is negligible compared to the power of the engine. The plane will always take off.


The other side of the issue is with a toy plane, maybe 1 pound, where the force from the treadmill is no longer insignificant, what happens when the force from the engine against the wind matches the force from the treadmill against the wheels.


When the force from the engine is greater than the force from the treadmill, the plane will always take off. This is what the MythBusters showed.

When the force from the engine is less than the force from the treadmill, the plane will never take off.

What happens when the force from the engine equals the force from the treadmill? This was never tested by the MythBusters.

 

[zinfamous]

so some dudes work up a scale mock-up

then they drag a tarp under a real airplane.

all of this is far more effort than any person in these forums will ever attempt, yet there is still debate.






you all lose.

 

[CorCentral]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
so some dudes work up a scale mock-up

then they drag a tarp under a real airplane.

all of this is far more effort than any person in these forums will ever attempt, yet there is still debate.

you all lose.

Don't be such a Grape Ape!
No debate by me...................... I'm smooth, monkey!

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: cubby1223
I don't get it. Wasn't the debate about when the plane is the same speed as the conveyor belt? The plane was clearly moving faster than the conveyor belt before it took off. So of course it took off.

The rest of the myth, I really don't care about except I see everyone here argue it. But I mean, how did the mythbusters prove anything? Both the toy plane and the real plane were traveling faster than the conveyor belts.

point is you can't get teh speed to match. it is not possible.

the thrust of the engines or pull fo the propeller are going to win out. UNLESS you have something hooked to the body of the plane. the wheels have ZERO effect over it.

0.0000000000000000000.....1 /= 0

:evil:

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: CorCentral

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Seriously, many of you who disagree, a treadmill / conveyor belt / whatever, does assert a force on the plane. I don't care if the wheels are free-spinning, they are not frictionless. While this concept remains in debate, there will always be disagreement amongst people over the semantics of the "myth".

The MythBusters proved the force a plane's engine creates by moving the air, can be greater than the force of the belt (or tarp) pulling the plane backwards. Nothing more.

So you're saying that the conveyor belt/tarp (if going fast enough), the plane would not take off? :laugh: Do you know the amounts of force/heat a bearing can take? And how many jets fly non stop flights day after day with zero problems?

Even at 4x speed, the plane would still take off. The Myth is dead/BUSTED!

I bet you could get the candy cane avatar of yours to fly before people are willing to admit they were wrong on this!

Of course its possible to arrange circumstances for this test which would prevent air from passing over the planes wings & developing lift, but they just arn't realistic which is why I agree with Adam & Jamie in declaring this myth is BUSTED!

Nothing left to see here folks .... move along!

 

[l6873]

In case anyone missed it.
http://tapespace.com/mythbusters/index.php?id=1

The whole thing is here:
http://tapespace.com/mythbusters/index.php?id=2

 

[So]

Hey mods, can we get the title of this thread amended with a "BUSTED!" or somesuch?

 

[CorCentral]

Originally posted by: So
Hey mods, can we get the title of this thread amended with a "BUSTED!" or somesuch?

Seconded :thumbsup:

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: l6873
In case anyone missed it.
http://tapespace.com/mythbusters/index.php?id=1

Look at the parameters of the myth they put forth.

Break it down mathematically what they wanted to prove:

(say plane is facing to the right, treadmill pulls to the left)

(1) The takeoff speed of the plane is "x".
(2) The treadmill is traveling at the speed of "x" to the left.
(3) Get the plane to travel at the speed of "x" to the right relative to the speed of the treadmill, in other words, not moving relative to an observer.
(4) Does the plane take off?

That is not what the Myth Busters proved.



The Myth Busters showed that:

(1) The takeoff speed of the plane is "x".
(2) The treadmill is traveling at the speed of "x" to the left.
(3) The plane on a treadmill can move to the right relative to an observer, in other words, can travel faster than "x" to the right relative to the speed of the treadmill.
(4) The plane takes off.



Notice the differences in step 3. The Myth Busters' methodology does not follow the parameters they set up to test. They fucked up the test, but this is such a heated debate between nitwits, that everyone just wants to point fingers and gloat instead of actually looking at the specifics of the situation.

 

[coldmeat]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Look at the parameters of the myth they put forth.

Break it down mathematically what they wanted to prove:

(say plane is facing to the right, treadmill pulls to the left)

(1) The takeoff speed of the plane is "x".
(2) The treadmill is traveling at the speed of "x" to the left.
(3) Get the plane to travel at the speed of "x" to the right relative to the speed of the treadmill, in other words, not moving relative to an observer.
(4) Does the plane take off?

That is not what the Myth Busters proved.



The Myth Busters showed that:

(1) The takeoff speed of the plane is "x".
(2) The treadmill is traveling at the speed of "x" to the left.
(3) The plane on a treadmill can move to the right relative to an observer, in other words, can travel faster than "x" to the right relative to the speed of the treadmill.
(4) The plane takes off.



Notice the differences in step 3.

This is where all of the confusion comes from. People have a different understanding of what the myth is.

 

[CorCentral]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: l6873
In case anyone missed it.
http://tapespace.com/mythbusters/index.php?id=1

Look at the parameters of the myth they put forth.

Break it down mathematically what they wanted to prove:

(say plane is facing to the right, treadmill pulls to the left)

(1) The takeoff speed of the plane is "x".
(2) The treadmill is traveling at the speed of "x" to the left.
(3) Get the plane to travel at the speed of "x" to the right relative to the speed of the treadmill, in other words, not moving relative to an observer.
(4) Does the plane take off?

That is not what the Myth Busters proved.



The Myth Busters showed that:

(1) The takeoff speed of the plane is "x".
(2) The treadmill is traveling at the speed of "x" to the left.
(3) The plane on a treadmill can move to the right relative to an observer, in other words, can travel faster than "x" to the right relative to the speed of the treadmill.
(4) The plane takes off.

Notice the differences in step 3.

The Myth that was stated for YEARS............... WAS BUSTED!!!!!!

Go make up your own myth then, spread it around the internet for years and hopefully, add a hint of blue to the stripes on your cane. Oh sorry, you hump BlueRay daily so you no needy stripes ...... Double loss.

 

[indamixx99]

Awesome.. it took off!

That foam stuff was pretty damn cool though. Me wants some!

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: coldmeat

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Look at the parameters of the myth they put forth.

Break it down mathematically what they wanted to prove:

(say plane is facing to the right, treadmill pulls to the left)

(1) The takeoff speed of the plane is "x".
(2) The treadmill is traveling at the speed of "x" to the left.
(3) Get the plane to travel at the speed of "x" to the right relative to the speed of the treadmill, in other words, not moving relative to an observer.
(4) Does the plane take off?

That is not what the Myth Busters proved.



The Myth Busters showed that:

(1) The takeoff speed of the plane is "x".
(2) The treadmill is traveling at the speed of "x" to the left.
(3) The plane on a treadmill can move to the right relative to an observer, in other words, can travel faster than "x" to the right relative to the speed of the treadmill.
(4) The plane takes off.



Notice the differences in step 3.

This is where all of the confusion comes from. People have a different understanding of what the myth is.

Right, considering the FIRST part of what he wrote isn't even realistically possible given the conditions of the problem.

 

[CorCentral]

Originally posted by: indamixx99
Awesome.. it took off!

That foam stuff was pretty damn cool though. Me wants some!

Here's a site that has the stuff. There are many online of course, and you may be able to find it cheaper the more you buy, but this is what I use.

They have this available in 50 gallon drums....... Twice what Mythbusters used in the car!

YUMMY!

 

[eits]

the answer is easy... i don't need to watch mythbusters.

the answer is NO... the plane will not take off. whether a plane will fly is not dependent on how fast the wheels on the plane are going... it depends on the amount of lift the plane has under it's wings.