That plane, and it taking off.

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

No he's not, he explained it perfectly and his simple while effective calculation makes perfect sense. 20 + (-20) = 0. Math is not necessary to understand how a belt works, but it sure explains it nicely.

No, no, no!

Like was mentioned in the last thread: Take a Hot Wheels car on your home treadmill. If you turn teh belt on and run it at 20mph, do you honestly think you have to push the Hot Wheels car at 20mph in the opposite direction to keep the car in one place? That's rediculous.

It's not ridiculous, simple conservation of energy. You have to apply a force on the car that would be equivalent to pushing it at 20mph to keep it still.

I can imagine why this is so difficult to understand, but it just takes a little thought.

Ok, I get it now. It's all crystal clear. You're a complete fool who has no understanding of the most basic concepts of physics. :laugh:

Let me ask this. If the treadmill is moving at 20mph and the car must be moving backwards at 20mph, what is powering the wheels? I mean, they are also moving at 20mph, no? So you attempts at "conserving" energy have magically "doubled" the amount of energy created! You have spinning wheels and reverse momentum. You've solved the world's energy crisis! :laugh:

Here's another little "hint." The vast majority of the energy from the treadmill is transfered to the rotating wheels, NOT to reverse momentum on the body.

Car with free-spinning wheels != brick.

If you had a "perfect" Hot Wheels cars with perfect wheels and bearings, don't you think you'd be able to hold the car stationary on a 600mph treadmill with your hand? Of course you could, but according to you, that's the equivalent of stopping a speeding bullet with your bare hand. :roll:

 

[dxkj]

Anyone else think this would make a hilarious mythbusters episode?

 

[scottish144]

Assuming that there is absolutely no friction between the plane and the wheel axels yes.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

No he's not, he explained it perfectly and his simple while effective calculation makes perfect sense. 20 + (-20) = 0. Math is not necessary to understand how a belt works, but it sure explains it nicely.

No, no, no!

Like was mentioned in the last thread: Take a Hot Wheels car on your home treadmill. If you turn teh belt on and run it at 20mph, do you honestly think you have to push the Hot Wheels car at 20mph in the opposite direction to keep the car in one place? That's rediculous.

It's not ridiculous, simple conservation of energy. You have to apply a force on the car that would be equivalent to pushing it at 20mph to keep it still.

I can imagine why this is so difficult to understand, but it just takes a little thought.

Ok, I get it now. It's all crystal clear. You're a complete fool who has no understanding of the most basic concepts of physics. :laugh:

Let me ask this. If the treadmill is moving at 20mph and the car must be moving backwards at 20mph, what is powering the wheels?

The belt is powering the wheels. Do you seriously think that if you put a car on a treadmill that the car will not move with the treadmill?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
The belt is powering the wheels. Do you seriously think that if you put a car on a treadmill that the car will not move with the treadmill?

Quote the rest of my post, numb-nuts. Yes, the car will move backwards, due to some friction. But a single finger can hold the car steady, and that finger does *not* have to be moving at 20mph to hold the car in one place. Do you not see that the majority of the treadmill's energy is transfered to the spinning of the wheels and NOT to the movement of the car's body?

The way you keep clipping posts and not answering direct questions indicates that you are doing nothing more than simple trolling. Either admit you are wrong, answer the questions, or just fvck off, troll. This was a legitimate debate until you showed up.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
The belt is powering the wheels. Do you seriously think that if you put a car on a treadmill that the car will not move with the treadmill?

Quote the rest of my post, numb-nuts. Yes, the car will move backwards, due to some friction. But a single finger can hold the car steady, and that finger does *not* have to be moving at 20mph to hold the car in one place. Do you not see that the majority of the treadmill's energy is transfered to the spinning of the wheels and NOT to the movement of the car's body?

The way you keep clipping posts and not answering direct questions indicates that you are doing nothing more than simple trolling. Either admit you are wrong, answer the questions, or just fvck off, troll. This was a legitimate debate until you showed up.

It was a legitimate debate until someone came in that doesn't agree with your logic, which you are obviously having a very hard time handling. I'll avoid responding to you from here on as I don't want you to go crazy in front of your keyboard and smash it to bits out of frustration (like this one german fella I'm sure we all are familiar with ). Hold yourself together man and grow up just a little bit.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
The belt is powering the wheels. Do you seriously think that if you put a car on a treadmill that the car will not move with the treadmill?

Quote the rest of my post, numb-nuts. Yes, the car will move backwards, due to some friction. But a single finger can hold the car steady, and that finger does *not* have to be moving at 20mph to hold the car in one place. Do you not see that the majority of the treadmill's energy is transfered to the spinning of the wheels and NOT to the movement of the car's body?

The way you keep clipping posts and not answering direct questions indicates that you are doing nothing more than simple trolling. Either admit you are wrong, answer the questions, or just fvck off, troll. This was a legitimate debate until you showed up.

I turned to trolling to hide my ignorance on the subject and since I see that my trolling has been discovered I'll just discontinue to repond to anyone here who might have a chance at showing me with simple-to-understand examples that I'm completely wrong.

Well, OK then. *shrug*

 

[thirdlegstump]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Holy crap you really ARE confused.

You're essentially saying that if the conveyor belt starts moving, then the wheels of the plane automatically spins without any power applied to the engine. The plane is not necessarily a hot wheels car, it is a heavy hotwheels car with soft rubber wheels with an engine tied to it's back. There will be quite a bit of an engine power requirement to push the aircraft forward even on steady ground.

In real life, you don't just tap the throttle to start taxi. You apply quite a generous amount.

Not that you'd understand anyhow....

 

[thirdlegstump]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
The belt is powering the wheels. Do you seriously think that if you put a car on a treadmill that the car will not move with the treadmill?

Quote the rest of my post, numb-nuts. Yes, the car will move backwards, due to some friction. But a single finger can hold the car steady, and that finger does *not* have to be moving at 20mph to hold the car in one place. Do you not see that the majority of the treadmill's energy is transfered to the spinning of the wheels and NOT to the movement of the car's body?

The way you keep clipping posts and not answering direct questions indicates that you are doing nothing more than simple trolling. Either admit you are wrong, answer the questions, or just fvck off, troll. This was a legitimate debate until you showed up.

Well first of all, there is no finger. Second, the finger would be stationary and in size-wise perspective, it would be a HECK of a lot more powerful than the tiny engine in that hot wheels car. End of story really.

 

[piasabird]

Sounds like stupidity to me.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: deathkoba

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Holy crap you really ARE a fool.

You're essentially saying that if the conveyor belt starts moving, then the wheels of the plane automatically spins without any power applied to the engine. The plane is not necessarily a hot wheels car, it is a heavy hotwheels car with soft rubber wheels with an engine tied to it's back. There will be quite a bit of an engine power requirement to push the aircraft forward even on steady ground.

In real life, you don't just tap the throttle to start taxi. You apply quite a generous amount.

Not that you'd understand anyhow....

I am sure he understands that, he is trying to simplify the problem for those who are having trouble seeing why a plane is not pulled back by a treadmill at the same speed it is moving forward in this problem. Sure there is friction, but the engines could easily overcome them as long as you aren't assuming the paradox case which is NOT the form commonly on the internet.

 

[remagavon]

We should have a thread about butter. That would be a swell, original idea.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: deathkoba

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
The belt is powering the wheels. Do you seriously think that if you put a car on a treadmill that the car will not move with the treadmill?

Quote the rest of my post, numb-nuts. Yes, the car will move backwards, due to some friction. But a single finger can hold the car steady, and that finger does *not* have to be moving at 20mph to hold the car in one place. Do you not see that the majority of the treadmill's energy is transfered to the spinning of the wheels and NOT to the movement of the car's body?

The way you keep clipping posts and not answering direct questions indicates that you are doing nothing more than simple trolling. Either admit you are wrong, answer the questions, or just fvck off, troll. This was a legitimate debate until you showed up.

Well first of all, there is no finger. Second, the finger would be stationary and in size-wise perspective, it would be a HECK of a lot more powerful than the tiny engine in that hot wheels car. End of story really.

It's called an example, and if you can't extrapolate the same rationale behind the Hot Wheels car to a real plane, then you are a fool.

Maybe you also think that 100% of the rotation of the treadmill is transfered to the reverse motion of the car/plane as well? :laugh:

 

[thirdlegstump]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: deathkoba

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Holy crap you really ARE a fool.

You're essentially saying that if the conveyor belt starts moving, then the wheels of the plane automatically spins without any power applied to the engine. The plane is not necessarily a hot wheels car, it is a heavy hotwheels car with soft rubber wheels with an engine tied to it's back. There will be quite a bit of an engine power requirement to push the aircraft forward even on steady ground.

In real life, you don't just tap the throttle to start taxi. You apply quite a generous amount.

Not that you'd understand anyhow....

I am sure he understands that, he is trying to simplify the problem for those who are having trouble seeing why a plane is not pulled back by a treadmill at the same speed it is moving forward in this problem. Sure there is friction, but the engines could easily overcome them as long as you aren't assuming the paradox case which is NOT the form commonly on the internet.

Yes but it's not anywhere near as cut and dry as he seems to put it. Bah I don't care anymore.

 

[ForumMaster]

i'm sure someone has posted the link to the thread about this, but just incase they haven't (and also because i am way too lazy to search through all the pages, here it is. And yes, the plane does take off cause the wheels don't do anything. all the matters is the thrust from the engines.

 

[ORGANDONOR]

yes

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: deathkoba

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Holy crap you really ARE confused.

You're essentially saying that if the conveyor belt starts moving, then the wheels of the plane automatically spins without any power applied to the engine. The plane is not necessarily a hot wheels car, it is a heavy hotwheels car with soft rubber wheels with an engine tied to it's back. There will be quite a bit of an engine power requirement to push the aircraft forward even on steady ground.

In real life, you don't just tap the throttle to start taxi. You apply quite a generous amount.

Not that you'd understand anyhow....

In the ideal plane if the belt was to start spinning the plane would stay put and the wheels would turn.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: ORGANDONOR
yes

/thread (if only)

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: blahblah99

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: deathkoba


The plane will take off only if it's engine can generate enough thrust to push the plane even harder than it already is doing, (which is what's keeping it visually stationary in the first place) to the point where there is enough airspeed for take off. So the real answer is YES or NO depending on the performance of the engine and how fast that conveyor belt is moving and whether or not the conveyor belt is adjusting it's speed in realtime as the plane's engine makes adjustments. That plus other environmental factors that affect flight performance directly or indirectly. It's common sense folks.

For the most part, it doesn't matter what the belt is doing, since the plane is just rolling.

My previous example was taken to the extreme, and isn't realistic.

If a jet's takeoff speed is 200 mph, and the belt is moving backwards at 200 mph, the plane will still take off just as easily. The only difference will be that the wheels will be turning at 400 mph.

Bingo! Why is that so hard to comprehend for some people?

Because some people are aware of the 200mph clocked on the belt while other choose to ignore it's impact on the plane. The plane would take off, but only if it exerts twice the thrust it otherwise would have.

You'd have to be moving the AIRSTREAM at 200mph for the plane to exert twice as much thrust. A threadmill is not a wind tunnel.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: blahblah99

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: deathkoba


The plane will take off only if it's engine can generate enough thrust to push the plane even harder than it already is doing, (which is what's keeping it visually stationary in the first place) to the point where there is enough airspeed for take off. So the real answer is YES or NO depending on the performance of the engine and how fast that conveyor belt is moving and whether or not the conveyor belt is adjusting it's speed in realtime as the plane's engine makes adjustments. That plus other environmental factors that affect flight performance directly or indirectly. It's common sense folks.

For the most part, it doesn't matter what the belt is doing, since the plane is just rolling.

My previous example was taken to the extreme, and isn't realistic.

If a jet's takeoff speed is 200 mph, and the belt is moving backwards at 200 mph, the plane will still take off just as easily. The only difference will be that the wheels will be turning at 400 mph.

Bingo! Why is that so hard to comprehend for some people?

Because some people are aware of the 200mph clocked on the belt while other choose to ignore it's impact on the plane. The plane would take off, but only if it exerts twice the thrust it otherwise would have.

You'd have to be moving the AIRSTREAM at 200mph for the plane to exert twice as much thrust. A threadmill is not a wind tunnel.

If the plane is in the air yes. But on the ground 'airsteam' is not the only resistance the plane encounters.

 

[tooltime]

of course

 

[ta8689]

Originally posted by: LoKe
Let's all pool our money together and rent an airplane, then we'll see what happens.

more like pool out money to get a giant conveyor belt. the plane will run you about 150 bucks...

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: blahblah99

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: deathkoba


The plane will take off only if it's engine can generate enough thrust to push the plane even harder than it already is doing, (which is what's keeping it visually stationary in the first place) to the point where there is enough airspeed for take off. So the real answer is YES or NO depending on the performance of the engine and how fast that conveyor belt is moving and whether or not the conveyor belt is adjusting it's speed in realtime as the plane's engine makes adjustments. That plus other environmental factors that affect flight performance directly or indirectly. It's common sense folks.

For the most part, it doesn't matter what the belt is doing, since the plane is just rolling.

My previous example was taken to the extreme, and isn't realistic.

If a jet's takeoff speed is 200 mph, and the belt is moving backwards at 200 mph, the plane will still take off just as easily. The only difference will be that the wheels will be turning at 400 mph.

Bingo! Why is that so hard to comprehend for some people?

Because some people are aware of the 200mph clocked on the belt while other choose to ignore it's impact on the plane. The plane would take off, but only if it exerts twice the thrust it otherwise would have.

You'd have to be moving the AIRSTREAM at 200mph for the plane to exert twice as much thrust. A threadmill is not a wind tunnel.

If the plane is in the air yes. But on the ground 'airsteam' is not the only resistance the plane encounters.

Oops, looks like it might be closer to 195MPH airstream and 200MPH conveyor.

 

[Delbert]

I havent read the whole thread. Well this one.
Sorry if this has already been posted.
It's a video of a float plane taking off from a trailer being pulled by a truck.
Similaritys?

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: Delbert
I havent read the whole thread. Well this one.
Sorry if this has already been posted.
It's a video of a float plane taking off from a trailer being pulled by a truck.
Similaritys?

No, because in that video the plane is actually moving; meaning, there is air flow.