That plane, and it taking off.

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

except...interpretation 1 can't happen without some SERIOUS speed from the treadmill...and the plane would have already taken off by then.... Notice he said the "treadmill does nothing"

Notice I kept refering to "perfect conveyor".
Of course the damns thing will take off if you're putting all aspects into a "reality" based POV. I thought it was meaning to be perfect conditions in all aspects.

Oh...



Never mind..... </ Rose Ann Roseanadana>

I have no idea what you mean by the end of that...

however, the perfect conveyor cannot stop the plane either...and fact is...the realistic conveyor can slow the acceleration of the craft a BIT...while the perfect conveyor cannot even do that.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG

Originally posted by: UlricT
WTF guys... the planes wheels are free-rolling. It does NOT drive the plane. The wheels will just spin twice as fast as the plane is moving forward (plane speed + conveyor belt speed)!

OK this is a great example of why seemingly intelligent people actually think the plane would take off. They misread the question and think the plane is actually moving relative to the air.

* If the plane is moving (fast enough) relative to the atmosphere, it will generate lift and take off.
* If the plane is not moving (fast enough) relative to atmosphere, it will not generate lift and take off.

See? Not so complicated. No differential equations, no general relativity, no damn Lorentz transformation. :roll:

The question, as I originally read it on ATOT months ago (maybe year+) stated that the speed of the conveyor would always match the speed of the plane relative to the conveyor. Meaning that the plane won't go anywhere relative to the atmosphere. However, if you wish to read the (very poorly worded) question as allowing for the increased velocity of the plane without a corresponding increase relative to the conveyor belt, you would believe that the plane could take off.

Put a toy car on a treadmill...push it forward and try to make it stop by increasing treadmill speed...see what happens...

I must be crazy for actually showing the physics behind this problem...

Oh fvck. Nevermind. I finally figured it out in my head and then realizeed you posted the answer above:

The force of the treadmill acts only on the wheels.

Why the fvck didn't I get that. I guess it didn't help that most people here are posting nonsense... sorry

Cool dude, glad ya see it
I wish I could help others see it

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
except...interpretation 1 can't happen without some SERIOUS speed from the treadmill...and the plane would have already taken off by then.... Notice he said the "treadmill does nothing"

Exactly... yet everyone here somehow thinks they can make the treadmill keep the plane from moving forward. You can't keep the plane from moving with the treadmill because the treadmill doesn't do anything to it.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
except...interpretation 1 can't happen without some SERIOUS speed from the treadmill...and the plane would have already taken off by then.... Notice he said the "treadmill does nothing"

Exactly... yet everyone here somehow thinks they can make the treadmill keep the plane from moving forward. You can't keep the plane from moving with the treadmill because the treadmill doesn't do anything to it.

except prevent it from moving forward. In order to move forward the wheels break the rules/bounds of the OP.

How people don't see that is beyond me.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Witchfire
Look people... The force applied from the engines is in the form of thrust into the air. There is no driving force whatsoever supplied to the wheels/landing gear of any aircraft. You guys that say it won't take off and 'all forces are cancelled out' (LMFAO on that one) can spin your hampster wheels on those treadmills as fast as you want, and it makes absolutely no difference. The force those engines are applying are no different than if you replaced those engines with a mechanical winch. You could again spin your treadmill as fast as you wanted, and the winch would overcome it.

The question as stated has the treadmil speed increasing as the rotation of planes wheels increase such that there is no forward movement of the plane. So a plane can't take off unless it moves forward.

...but it doesn't work that way. Increasing the speed wouldn't keep the plane from moving forward, so the question is bad to begin with if that's the way you interpret it.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Witchfire
Look people... The force applied from the engines is in the form of thrust into the air. There is no driving force whatsoever supplied to the wheels/landing gear of any aircraft. You guys that say it won't take off and 'all forces are cancelled out' (LMFAO on that one) can spin your hampster wheels on those treadmills as fast as you want, and it makes absolutely no difference. The force those engines are applying are no different than if you replaced those engines with a mechanical winch. You could again spin your treadmill as fast as you wanted, and the winch would overcome it.

The question as stated has the treadmil speed increasing as the rotation of planes wheels increase such that there is no forward movement of the plane. So a plane can't take off unless it moves forward.

...but it doesn't work that way. Increasing the speed wouldn't keep the plane from moving forward, so the question is bad to begin with if that's the way you interpret it.

That is how the question works. It is defind as the constraint on the problem.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
except...interpretation 1 can't happen without some SERIOUS speed from the treadmill...and the plane would have already taken off by then.... Notice he said the "treadmill does nothing"

Exactly... yet everyone here somehow thinks they can make the treadmill keep the plane from moving forward. You can't keep the plane from moving with the treadmill because the treadmill doesn't do anything to it.

except prevent it from moving forward. In order to move forward the wheels break the rules/bounds of the OP.

How people don't see that is beyond me.

Note the updated question, there was an error in wording when the OP wrote it.

The conveyor matches the Linear speed of the plane now...not the rotational speed of the wheels. So it violates no physics laws.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Witchfire
Look people... The force applied from the engines is in the form of thrust into the air. There is no driving force whatsoever supplied to the wheels/landing gear of any aircraft. You guys that say it won't take off and 'all forces are cancelled out' (LMFAO on that one) can spin your hampster wheels on those treadmills as fast as you want, and it makes absolutely no difference. The force those engines are applying are no different than if you replaced those engines with a mechanical winch. You could again spin your treadmill as fast as you wanted, and the winch would overcome it.

The question as stated has the treadmil speed increasing as the rotation of planes wheels increase such that there is no forward movement of the plane. So a plane can't take off unless it moves forward.

...but it doesn't work that way. Increasing the speed wouldn't keep the plane from moving forward, so the question is bad to begin with if that's the way you interpret it.

That is how the question works. It is defind as the constraint on the problem.

Until you can get up and realize that saying the treadmill going backwards at the same speed the plane goes forward does not mean the plane is staying in place...you won't get the problem correct.

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
...but it doesn't work that way. Increasing the speed wouldn't keep the plane from moving forward, so the question is bad to begin with if that's the way you interpret it.

That is how the question works. It is defind as the constraint on the problem.

Condition 1 does not follow a fundamental law of physics. So, since this imaginary world doesn't follow physics as we know it, we cannot say whether it does or does not take off. Condition 2, it will without a doubt take off.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Witchfire
Look people... The force applied from the engines is in the form of thrust into the air. There is no driving force whatsoever supplied to the wheels/landing gear of any aircraft. You guys that say it won't take off and 'all forces are cancelled out' (LMFAO on that one) can spin your hampster wheels on those treadmills as fast as you want, and it makes absolutely no difference. The force those engines are applying are no different than if you replaced those engines with a mechanical winch. You could again spin your treadmill as fast as you wanted, and the winch would overcome it.

The question as stated has the treadmil speed increasing as the rotation of planes wheels increase such that there is no forward movement of the plane. So a plane can't take off unless it moves forward.

Show me where the original question says there is "No forward movement"

You make that assumption and it is incorrect.

The treadmill speed matches that of the aircraft...that does NOT mean the airplane is not moving forward.

The treamill speed matches the speed of the wheels rotation. From the op post The belt compensates for the forward rotation of the wheels IE if the plane rolled forward an inch the treadmil will compensate for that movement and move the plane back an inch. The plane will not move at all because any movement is cancled by the belt.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: JujuFish

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
...but it doesn't work that way. Increasing the speed wouldn't keep the plane from moving forward, so the question is bad to begin with if that's the way you interpret it.

That is how the question works. It is defind as the constraint on the problem.

Condition 1 does not follow a fundamental law of physics. So, since this imaginary world doesn't follow physics as we know it, we cannot say whether it does or does not take off. Condition 2, it will without a doubt take off.

I don't know which world your physics are in but in mine wheels have friction and an object set on top of a treadmill will move with that treadmil.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Witchfire
Look people... The force applied from the engines is in the form of thrust into the air. There is no driving force whatsoever supplied to the wheels/landing gear of any aircraft. You guys that say it won't take off and 'all forces are cancelled out' (LMFAO on that one) can spin your hampster wheels on those treadmills as fast as you want, and it makes absolutely no difference. The force those engines are applying are no different than if you replaced those engines with a mechanical winch. You could again spin your treadmill as fast as you wanted, and the winch would overcome it.

The question as stated has the treadmil speed increasing as the rotation of planes wheels increase such that there is no forward movement of the plane. So a plane can't take off unless it moves forward.

Show me where the original question says there is "No forward movement"

You make that assumption and it is incorrect.

The treadmill speed matches that of the aircraft...that does NOT mean the airplane is not moving forward.

The treamill speed matches the speed of the wheels rotation. From the op post The belt compensates for the forward rotation of the wheels IE if the plane rolled forward an inch the treadmil will compensate for that movement and move the plane back an inch. The plane will not move at all because any movement is cancled by the belt.

Incorrect. The speed of the wheels does not affect the force on the aircraft. It does not matter how fast the wheels spin.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Witchfire
Look people... The force applied from the engines is in the form of thrust into the air. There is no driving force whatsoever supplied to the wheels/landing gear of any aircraft. You guys that say it won't take off and 'all forces are cancelled out' (LMFAO on that one) can spin your hampster wheels on those treadmills as fast as you want, and it makes absolutely no difference. The force those engines are applying are no different than if you replaced those engines with a mechanical winch. You could again spin your treadmill as fast as you wanted, and the winch would overcome it.

The question as stated has the treadmil speed increasing as the rotation of planes wheels increase such that there is no forward movement of the plane. So a plane can't take off unless it moves forward.

Show me where the original question says there is "No forward movement"

You make that assumption and it is incorrect.

The treadmill speed matches that of the aircraft...that does NOT mean the airplane is not moving forward.

The treamill speed matches the speed of the wheels rotation. From the op post The belt compensates for the forward rotation of the wheels IE if the plane rolled forward an inch the treadmil will compensate for that movement and move the plane back an inch. The plane will not move at all because any movement is cancled by the belt.

Spin a treadmill under a toy car(no engine)...the wheels will spin but the car will not roll back(assuming low friction)

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Witchfire
Look people... The force applied from the engines is in the form of thrust into the air. There is no driving force whatsoever supplied to the wheels/landing gear of any aircraft. You guys that say it won't take off and 'all forces are cancelled out' (LMFAO on that one) can spin your hampster wheels on those treadmills as fast as you want, and it makes absolutely no difference. The force those engines are applying are no different than if you replaced those engines with a mechanical winch. You could again spin your treadmill as fast as you wanted, and the winch would overcome it.

The question as stated has the treadmil speed increasing as the rotation of planes wheels increase such that there is no forward movement of the plane. So a plane can't take off unless it moves forward.

...but it doesn't work that way. Increasing the speed wouldn't keep the plane from moving forward, so the question is bad to begin with if that's the way you interpret it.

That is how the question works. It is defind as the constraint on the problem.

Until you can get up and realize that saying the treadmill going backwards at the same speed the plane goes forward does not mean the plane is staying in place...you won't get the problem correct.

The treadmil doesn't go backwards at the same speed as the plane it goes backwards at the same speed as the wheels rotate.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Witchfire
Look people... The force applied from the engines is in the form of thrust into the air. There is no driving force whatsoever supplied to the wheels/landing gear of any aircraft. You guys that say it won't take off and 'all forces are cancelled out' (LMFAO on that one) can spin your hampster wheels on those treadmills as fast as you want, and it makes absolutely no difference. The force those engines are applying are no different than if you replaced those engines with a mechanical winch. You could again spin your treadmill as fast as you wanted, and the winch would overcome it.

The question as stated has the treadmil speed increasing as the rotation of planes wheels increase such that there is no forward movement of the plane. So a plane can't take off unless it moves forward.

Show me where the original question says there is "No forward movement"

You make that assumption and it is incorrect.

The treadmill speed matches that of the aircraft...that does NOT mean the airplane is not moving forward.

The treamill speed matches the speed of the wheels rotation. From the op post The belt compensates for the forward rotation of the wheels IE if the plane rolled forward an inch the treadmil will compensate for that movement and move the plane back an inch. The plane will not move at all because any movement is cancled by the belt.

Incorrect. The speed of the wheels does not affect the force on the aircraft. It does not matter how fast the wheels spin.

No that is what the problem states. It can not be incorrect.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Spin a treadmill under a toy car(no engine)...the wheels will spin but the car will not roll back(assuming low friction)

Well, there would be a little force, but the point is that this force is not (to a high approximation) dependent on the wheel speed. The force you need to keep the car on the treadmill is the same whether the treadmill is going 0.001 mph or 10 mph.

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: smack Down
No that is what the problem states. It can not be incorrect.

That is why there is no correct answer to the problem. As written, it is an impossible situation. The belt can't compensate for the rotation of the wheels, yet the problem states it does. The result is multiple threads with hundreds of posts.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: smack Down

No that is what the problem states. It can not be incorrect.

If that is what the problem truly states, then it is incorrect. And yes, the question can be incorrect.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Witchfire
Look people... The force applied from the engines is in the form of thrust into the air. There is no driving force whatsoever supplied to the wheels/landing gear of any aircraft. You guys that say it won't take off and 'all forces are cancelled out' (LMFAO on that one) can spin your hampster wheels on those treadmills as fast as you want, and it makes absolutely no difference. The force those engines are applying are no different than if you replaced those engines with a mechanical winch. You could again spin your treadmill as fast as you wanted, and the winch would overcome it.

The question as stated has the treadmil speed increasing as the rotation of planes wheels increase such that there is no forward movement of the plane. So a plane can't take off unless it moves forward.

...but it doesn't work that way. Increasing the speed wouldn't keep the plane from moving forward, so the question is bad to begin with if that's the way you interpret it.

That is how the question works. It is defind as the constraint on the problem.

Until you can get up and realize that saying the treadmill going backwards at the same speed the plane goes forward does not mean the plane is staying in place...you won't get the problem correct.

The treadmil doesn't go backwards at the same speed as the plane it goes backwards at the same speed as the wheels rotate.

The OP has been changed:

The plane increases it's thrust and the wheels begin to rotate. The belt compensates for #1 the forward rotation of the wheels or #2 the forward movement of the plane, as in the belt moves in reverse exactly as fast as condition #1 or #2

And if it matters, it's a nice sunny day and you have good tires, so you get perfect traction on the belt at all times. Your plane also happens to be very powerful and you can give it as much thrust as you like, but the source of thrust is at the back of the plane so it never provides airflow over the wing.

Does the plane take off using #1?
Does the plane take off using #2?

The common problem on the internet is #2. The OP just was curious about #1 and added that himself. However, we are discussing #2. Which is not impossible at all.

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JujuFish

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
...but it doesn't work that way. Increasing the speed wouldn't keep the plane from moving forward, so the question is bad to begin with if that's the way you interpret it.

That is how the question works. It is defind as the constraint on the problem.

Condition 1 does not follow a fundamental law of physics. So, since this imaginary world doesn't follow physics as we know it, we cannot say whether it does or does not take off. Condition 2, it will without a doubt take off.

I don't know which world your physics are in but in mine wheels have friction and an object set on top of a treadmill will move with that treadmil.

In my world, engines provide a force at which, under the conditions given in the OP, friction can only marginally counter. There will be a net force.

 

[dxkj]

If the conveyer belt is moving at 200mph , and that is the same speed as the plane, then obviously the plane is moving at 200mph, which is the takeoff speed.... silly question


The only drag that the convery belt puts on the plane is due to the friction at the wheels.... lets assume that friction is high, so the wheels on the plane dont even move.. the plane will still either not overcome any friction and the belt wont move, or it will break free, and the belt wont have an affect on it.


It is theoretically possible that in order to create enough drag the belt would have to be moving at 100,000 mph in reverse, and that would cause enough friction through the wheels to inhibit the plane from taking off... though i imagine the bearings would be melted at that point...


The main flaw to the arguments for it NOT taking off are these: The way the question iss worded, for the belt to be moving, the plane has to be moving forward... if the plane is moving forward at 200 mph, that means its moving forward at 200 mph, and will take off..

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: smack Down
No that is what the problem states. It can not be incorrect.

That is why there is no correct answer to the problem. As written, it is an impossible situation. The belt can't compensate for the rotation of the wheels, yet the problem states it does. The result is multiple threads with hundreds of posts.

It doesn't need to be possible to ask what would happen. It comes down to asking can a plane take off that can't move the answer is that it can't. Why and how it can't move doesn't really matter.

 

[JujuFish]

Nearly 39% wrong... sad.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: smack Down
No that is what the problem states. It can not be incorrect.

That is why there is no correct answer to the problem. As written, it is an impossible situation. The belt can't compensate for the rotation of the wheels, yet the problem states it does. The result is multiple threads with hundreds of posts.

It doesn't need to be possible to ask what would happen. It comes down to asking can a plane take off that can't move the answer is that it can't. Why and how it can't move doesn't really matter.

Yet you cannot prove your theory with physics...

The plane can move and I have provided all you need to know...yet you are unwilling to learn it seems.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Witchfire
Look people... The force applied from the engines is in the form of thrust into the air. There is no driving force whatsoever supplied to the wheels/landing gear of any aircraft. You guys that say it won't take off and 'all forces are cancelled out' (LMFAO on that one) can spin your hampster wheels on those treadmills as fast as you want, and it makes absolutely no difference. The force those engines are applying are no different than if you replaced those engines with a mechanical winch. You could again spin your treadmill as fast as you wanted, and the winch would overcome it.

The question as stated has the treadmil speed increasing as the rotation of planes wheels increase such that there is no forward movement of the plane. So a plane can't take off unless it moves forward.

...but it doesn't work that way. Increasing the speed wouldn't keep the plane from moving forward, so the question is bad to begin with if that's the way you interpret it.

That is how the question works. It is defind as the constraint on the problem.

Until you can get up and realize that saying the treadmill going backwards at the same speed the plane goes forward does not mean the plane is staying in place...you won't get the problem correct.

The treadmil doesn't go backwards at the same speed as the plane it goes backwards at the same speed as the wheels rotate.

The OP has been changed:

The plane increases it's thrust and the wheels begin to rotate. The belt compensates for #1 the forward rotation of the wheels or #2 the forward movement of the plane, as in the belt moves in reverse exactly as fast as condition #1 or #2

And if it matters, it's a nice sunny day and you have good tires, so you get perfect traction on the belt at all times. Your plane also happens to be very powerful and you can give it as much thrust as you like, but the source of thrust is at the back of the plane so it never provides airflow over the wing.

Does the plane take off using #1?
Does the plane take off using #2?

The common problem on the internet is #2. The OP just was curious about #1 and added that himself. However, we are discussing #2. Which is not impossible at all.

No the op post was orginally #1. Notice how 1 comes before 2 in the number system. People were talking about 2 because they can't compreand 1.