MythBusters

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: gingerstewart55
Sure the plane will take off......that's why the Navy has invested heavily in huge treadmills on their aircraft carriers to launch their jet fighters.....made the decks much shorter and safer than those antiquated steam catapults they used to use.

Wait.....they haven't and still insist upon using steam catapults for launching their jets.

Honestly, who the heck cares if it takes off or not......have yet to see any airport or aircraft carrier or anything/anywhere else trying this out to launch their planes. Instead, most of the research seems to be in the VTOL side of things. Seems a huge waste of research money to me if the treadmills work so well.

This debate reminds me of the "Driving with your windows down uses more gas than driving with your A/C on.....aerodynamic software proves it!" debate, which, of course, has constantly been discounted over and over. Sheesh.

Sit down and read the thread. You're way off.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Ns1
it is clear that jamie and adam do not know what they're doing. the show is for pure entertainment.


given the proper equipment, time, and money, the plane will not fly.

Hopefully you're joking.

Of course I'm not. They're not SCIENTISTS, they're fucking "special effects experts".

psh, calling them scientists is like calling britney spears talented.

You're amazingly clueless.

If you read the thread, you would clearly see that I am amazing brilliant. Or trolling, your pick

If you read the forum rules, the first 2 rules after #1 are: No trolling
Maybe you're just amazingly foolish?

Ah, thanks for the refresher. My bad

 

[MegaVovaN]

SO did it take off?
Please edit OP with info.
Not gonna read 800 posts of your nonsense (trout? siamese twins? foam? WTF)

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: MegaVovaN
SO did it take off?
Please edit OP with info.
Not gonna read 800 posts of your nonsense (trout? siamese twins? foam? WTF)

yes, the plane took off. whether it's sitting on concrete or a treadmill makes zero difference to a plane.

for the people that don't understand how planes work, and even better the people still in denial of the obvious:

ground speed = irrelevant
air speed = mucho importante

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: gingerstewart55
Sure the plane will take off......that's why the Navy has invested heavily in huge treadmills on their aircraft carriers to launch their jet fighters.....made the decks much shorter and safer than those antiquated steam catapults they used to use.

Wait.....they haven't and still insist upon using steam catapults for launching their jets.

Honestly, who the heck cares if it takes off or not......have yet to see any airport or aircraft carrier or anything/anywhere else trying this out to launch their planes. Instead, most of the research seems to be in the VTOL side of things. Seems a huge waste of research money to me if the treadmills work so well.

This debate reminds me of the "Driving with your windows down uses more gas than driving with your A/C on.....aerodynamic software proves it!" debate, which, of course, has constantly been discounted over and over. Sheesh.

You live in a very strange world... I hope the rest of us can visit it some day.

 

[olds]

Someone that is bored needs to go through all the plane/treadmill threads and make a list of people who said it won't take off. Then we can ridicule them once and for all.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Ns1
it is clear that jamie and adam do not know what they're doing. the show is for pure entertainment.


given the proper equipment, time, and money, the plane will not fly.

Hopefully you're joking.

Of course I'm not. They're not SCIENTISTS, they're fucking "special effects experts".

psh, calling them scientists is like calling britney spears talented.

What does it matter what their title is?

Any scientist knows that it'll take off.

*waves* I'm a scientist! A physicist even!

The plane takes off!

Friction force between the ground and the plane maxes out, and the engine of the plane easily pushes enough air to force the plane forward. QED

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: MegaVovaN
SO did it take off?
Please edit OP with info.
Not gonna read 800 posts of your nonsense (trout? siamese twins? foam? WTF)

yes, the plane took off. whether it's sitting on concrete or a treadmill makes zero difference to a plane.

for the people that don't understand how planes work, and even better the people still in denial of the obvious:

ground speed = irrelevant
air speed = mucho importante

isn't the easiest thing to do is to mention planes that use water to take off and land in? no wheels, no props or anything that would propel the plane touches the water. merely pontoons attached to legs on the plane. nothing to move it? how does it move forward then? in still water, or even water with a little current (a lot of current can, in this instance, cause it to not fly, because water actually provides pure resistance on the surface), the plane will move forward and take off.

 

[MegaVovaN]

Water plane was mentioned but these idiots came up with more reasonings why it wont fly, LOL.

 

[CorCentral]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Someone that is bored needs to go through all the plane/treadmill threads and make a list of people who said it won't take off. Then we can ridicule them once and for all.

I agree!
You're a Mod, you do it.

 

[Minjin]

I'm going to a presentation put on by Grant Imahara from Mythbusters in a couple hours. Anyone have any questions?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: Minjin
I'm going to a presentation put on by Grant Imahara from Mythbusters in a couple hours. Anyone have any questions?

ask him if they can get rid of that chucklehead tory.

 

[JRich]

I just watched it off my DVR. I knew what would happen. All I can say to the naysayers out there.....

LEARN PHYSICS BEFORE OPENING YOUR MOUTH!!! THE PLANE TAKES OFF!!!!

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: fisher
the plane can't take off. it's simple physics really.

Then you failed physics.

it's certainly not my fault you can't understand simple physics.

Yet, the plane took off. Please take physics again and re-read the myth. You obviously don't understand propulsion, friction, gravity and lift.

Look, fisher, I *teach* physics and have been saying for 2 years that the plane would take off. It was done experimentally and the plane took off. What I am confused about is whether you're trolling in this thread, or if you really just have that poor of comprehension. But, before more of your posts persuade me to believe that you are, in fact, simply trolling, allow me to point out right now that the rule #1 in the guidelines for these forums is: "no trolling."

Pwn'd!

 

[Minjin]

I thought you guys might like to know that during the question session, I asked if anyone on the show actually thought that the plane wouldn't take off. Grant admitted that he didn't think it would, but that after watching the show, he now understands why it does...

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: Minjin
I'm going to a presentation put on by Grant Imahara from Mythbusters in a couple hours. Anyone have any questions?

ask him if they can get rid of that chucklehead tory.

And try to persuade Scottie to come back. There's something oddly attractive about a woman who can safely handle an oxy-acetylene torch, and slice through steel too.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: sao123
Me thinks you have no understanding of the problem itself.

Very few people, physicists included, have an understanding of the problem. Even straightdope got it wrong, as credible as the site generally is.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: KK

So are you saying the belt has zero effect on the plane? Zero, Nada, Nil?

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.

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?"

Right that is how the myth was posted and how does it define speed? If it is the wheel speed then the plane can't take off. If it is air speed then the plane can take off.

I have never claimed otherwise. In this thread I didn't even talk about if the plane can take off or not all I did was prove the plane behaves identical to a car.

It is important to note that the difference between the two cases isn't the speed of the treadmill but the acceleration of the treadmill. A plane, car, or any other object that can propel themselves forward on a run way can do so on a run way going backwards at any speed assuming ideal conditions. Speed is meaningless without a reference and that is what we would have in that case.

Edit sorry I didn't post sooner I was busy flying around in a plane.

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: KK

So are you saying the belt has zero effect on the plane? Zero, Nada, Nil?

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.

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?"

Right that is how the myth was posted and how does it define speed? If it is the wheel speed then the plane can't take off. If it is air speed then the plane can take off.

I have never claimed otherwise. In this thread I didn't even talk about if the plane can take off or not all I did was prove the plane behaves identical to a car.

It is important to note that the difference between the two cases isn't the speed of the treadmill but the acceleration of the treadmill. A plane, car, or any other object that can propel themselves forward on a run way can do so on a run way going backwards at any speed assuming ideal conditions. Speed is meaningless without a reference and that is what we would have in that case.

Edit sorry I didn't post sooner I was busy flying around in a plane.

Let me get this straight: you believe that if a treadmill is moving backwards at a constant 50 MPH, and a car is moving forward at a constant 50 MPH, the car will not be held in place?

 

[zoiks]

I still can't believe that the naysayers are still at it. What is it that is so hard to understand. Okay at this point the only logical conclusion can be made by this illustration.
1. Take a cardboard box.
2. poop in it.
3. Invert the box on your head and wear it like a lampshade.

ya got poop for brains.

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: sao123
Me thinks you have no understanding of the problem itself.

Very few people, physicists included, have an understanding of the problem. Even straightdope got it wrong, as credible as the site generally is.

Straightdope's explanation has been completely consistent with all experimental results. Apparently nature itself doesn't even understand the problem.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: KK

So are you saying the belt has zero effect on the plane? Zero, Nada, Nil?

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.

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?"

Right that is how the myth was posted and how does it define speed? If it is the wheel speed then the plane can't take off. If it is air speed then the plane can take off.

I have never claimed otherwise. In this thread I didn't even talk about if the plane can take off or not all I did was prove the plane behaves identical to a car.

It is important to note that the difference between the two cases isn't the speed of the treadmill but the acceleration of the treadmill. A plane, car, or any other object that can propel themselves forward on a run way can do so on a run way going backwards at any speed assuming ideal conditions. Speed is meaningless without a reference and that is what we would have in that case.

Edit sorry I didn't post sooner I was busy flying around in a plane.

Let me get this straight: you believe that if a treadmill is moving backwards at a constant 50 MPH, and a car is moving forward at a constant 50 MPH, the car will not be held in place?

A car going at a constant speed is by definition not propelling itself forward it is costing.

Let give an example at car that is accelerating at 1 m/s will at some time in the future be going faster then the treadmill going backwards at a constant 50 MPH.

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: KK

So are you saying the belt has zero effect on the plane? Zero, Nada, Nil?

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.

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?"

Right that is how the myth was posted and how does it define speed? If it is the wheel speed then the plane can't take off. If it is air speed then the plane can take off.

I have never claimed otherwise. In this thread I didn't even talk about if the plane can take off or not all I did was prove the plane behaves identical to a car.

It is important to note that the difference between the two cases isn't the speed of the treadmill but the acceleration of the treadmill. A plane, car, or any other object that can propel themselves forward on a run way can do so on a run way going backwards at any speed assuming ideal conditions. Speed is meaningless without a reference and that is what we would have in that case.

Edit sorry I didn't post sooner I was busy flying around in a plane.

Let me get this straight: you believe that if a treadmill is moving backwards at a constant 50 MPH, and a car is moving forward at a constant 50 MPH, the car will not be held in place?

A car going at a constant speed is by definition not propelling itself forward it is costing.

Let give an example at car that is accelerating at 1 m/s will at some time in the future be going faster then the treadmill going backwards at a constant 50 MPH.

Here in the real world, maintaining a constant speed requires the car to overcome friction, wind resistance, and other forces. A car moving at a constant 50 MPH requires a constant output of power and is not coasting.

Your second paragraph makes no sense. If the car accelerates, so does the treadmill. That's the entire premise of the problem.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Venix

Here in the real world, maintaining a constant speed requires the car to overcome friction, wind resistance, and other forces. A car moving at a constant 50 MPH requires a constant output of power and is not coasting.

If the car accelerates, so does the treadmill. That's the entire premise of the problem.

Premise of which problem. There is two ways to look at the problem one where the treadmill accelerates to match the wheel speed and another where it accelerates to match the air speed. Matching of air speed can be simplified to the treadmill going at a constant speed. That is the case I was talking about.

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Venix

Here in the real world, maintaining a constant speed requires the car to overcome friction, wind resistance, and other forces. A car moving at a constant 50 MPH requires a constant output of power and is not coasting.

If the car accelerates, so does the treadmill. That's the entire premise of the problem.

Premise of which problem. There is two ways to look at the problem one where the treadmill accelerates to match the wheel speed and another where it accelerates to match the air speed. Matching of air speed can be simplified to the treadmill going at a constant speed. That is the case I was talking about.

...what? Matching the air speed means that if the plane accelerates, the treadmill accelerates at exactly the same rate. If the plane is moving at 50 MPH, so is the treadmill. If the plane accelerates to 100 MPH, so does the treadmill.

Matching the wheel speed makes absolutely no sense, since an increase in wheel speed leads to an increase in treadmill speed, which increases the wheel speed, which increases the treadmill speed...