You have a plane and a conveyor belt.

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: JujuFish

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Wow, I just had epiophony on our theoretical stalemate!

Someone who thinks it will take off answer this.

Do you believe that the turbines on the jet create enough force on their own to create lift? Because I'm of the opinion that they don't and that it's the combined air speed generated by the planes forward physical movement relative to the ground and the turbines that together generate enough windspeed to create lift.

I think the answer there is the resolution!

Um...the jet engines provide a force...the force pushes the plane forward through the air...creating lift...

there's the resolution

You standing infront of the plane waving a fan at it will create force. The question is, is it sufficient force all on it's own.

How else is the plane going to move forward?

That's how it will move forward. True. I'm not arguing that.

The question is, does the place require that forward movement in conjunction with the turbines to generate sufficient airflow for lift.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Wow, I just had epiophony on our theoretical stalemate!

Someone who thinks it will take off answer this.

Do you believe that the turbines on the jet create enough force on their own to create lift? Because I'm of the opinion that they don't and that it's the combined air speed generated by the planes forward physical movement relative to the ground and the turbines that together generate enough windspeed to create lift.

I think the answer there is the resolution!

They don't need to create lift, just forward movement.

Forward movement is counteracted by the treadmill.

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
That's how it will move forward. True. I'm not arguing that.

The question is, does the place require that forward movement in conjunction with the turbines to generate sufficient airflow for lift.

Turbines don't create lift. They apply a force to the plane, accelerating it until there is enough airflow. I don't know what's questionable in that.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Wow, I just had epiophony on our theoretical stalemate!

Someone who thinks it will take off answer this.

Do you believe that the turbines on the jet create enough force on their own to create lift? Because I'm of the opinion that they don't and that it's the combined air speed generated by the planes forward physical movement relative to the ground and the turbines that together generate enough windspeed to create lift.

I think the answer there is the resolution!

Um...the jet engines provide a force...the force pushes the plane forward through the air...creating lift...

there's the resolution

You standing infront of the plane waving a fan at it will create force. The question is, is it sufficient force all on it's own.

If you have a huge ass rediculous ACME WILE. E. Coyote approved fan yes.

What are you getting at?

We aren't talking about a windtunnel or any exteranl force. We're talking about the jet's own turbines.

The fact is that as a plane on a traditional runway takes off it has both the force from it's turbines/propellers AS WELL AS the airspeed from it's forward velocity to achieve lift. The question is, does it NEED the airspeed from forward velocity or are the engines suffient by themselves.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: JujuFish

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
That's how it will move forward. True. I'm not arguing that.

The question is, does the place require that forward movement in conjunction with the turbines to generate sufficient airflow for lift.

Turbines don't create lift. They apply a force to the plane, accelerating it until there is enough airflow. I don't know what's questionable in that.

So it looks like I wasn't as close as I thought to finding a resolution. You're still suggesting the plane travels along the treadmill.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Forward movement is counteracted by the treadmill.

And you still believe that the treadmill creates a force against air. Impressive.

 

[Phlargo]

How in god's name did this thread get over 1000 posts? Come on - we only need wind speed argument. The thrust is forward, not up - the wheels/treadmill will compensate for any forward motion and the lack of wind speed means no bernoulle effect. No take off.

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: Phlargo
How in god's name did this thread get over 1000 posts?

Because of people like you, as exemplified with the rest of your post:

Come on - we only need wind speed argument. The thrust is forward, not up - the wheels/treadmill will compensate for any forward motion and the lack of wind speed means no bernoulle effect. No take off.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: Phlargo
How in god's name did this thread get over 1000 posts? Come on - we only need wind speed argument. The thrust is forward, not up - the wheels/treadmill will compensate for any forward motion and the lack of wind speed means no bernoulle effect. No take off.

The highlighted part is just wrong! And where all that believe the plane won't take off are getting stumped.

Please explain how the force of the treadmill exerted against "free spinning" wheels will prevent tthe plane from moving forward?

 

[skace]

All I read was "Hello my name is Phlargo and I'm a dumbass, please excuse me while I jump to another thread and post something equally incorrect".

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Ground speed is irrelevant to flight dynamics, the only thing that matters is relative wind speed.

150 MPH motion of a vehicle into a 30 MPH head wind yields a relative wind speed of 180 MPH.
The same 150 velocity with a 30 MPH tail wind yields a relative wind speed of 120 MPH.

The statement is that not only is the wheel rotation compensated for by the belts reverse travel direction,
the belt also cancels any forward progress of the entire airplane - it is sitting still, with the tires rotating.
I don't care it the wheels are rotating at 20 MPH or 2 billion MPH - the vehicle itself does not move forward . . period.

Please, explain how the belt cancels the forward progress of the plane

 

[Udel]

The answer is yes. Period. Anyone who disagrees should be banned from life.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Wow, I just had epiophony on our theoretical stalemate!

Someone who thinks it will take off answer this.

Do you believe that the turbines on the jet create enough force on their own to create lift? Because I'm of the opinion that they don't and that it's the combined air speed generated by the planes forward physical movement relative to the ground and the turbines that together generate enough windspeed to create lift.

I think the answer there is the resolution!

Come on you guys are thinking yourself in circles

The turbines create forward motion(air speed)
The forward motion(air speed) creates lift

It's that simple!

The entire crux of the argument lies on: Does the plane achieve forward motion?

To support your belief that the plane will not take off, you somehow have to explain how the movement of the belt keeps the plane from moving forward

 

[Tu13erhead]

I think this calls for another analogy. I know, there have been dozens, but I'm hoping it'll help those non-believers out.

Imagine you're wearing a pair of rollerblades. You're standing on one of those moving walkways, like the ones they have at airports. Assume the bearings in your wheels are perfect and they don't allow for any friction, and also assume you get perfect traction between your wheels and the walkway. Now, the walkway begins to move backwards. The wheels on your rollerblades start spinning, too, in the opposite direction. You, however, don't move. You can theoretically crank the moving walkway up to whatever speed you want, and you won't move.

Luckily, you're wearing your jetpack. Now, regardless of the speed of the conveyor belt, when you fire up your jetpack (aimed backwards), you'll start moving forwards.

Make sense?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Ground speed is irrelevant to flight dynamics, the only thing that matters is relative wind speed.

150 MPH motion of a vehicle into a 30 MPH head wind yields a relative wind speed of 180 MPH.
The same 150 velocity with a 30 MPH tail wind yields a relative wind speed of 120 MPH.

The statement is that not only is the wheel rotation compensated for by the belts reverse travel direction,
the belt also cancels any forward progress of the entire airplane - it is sitting still, with the tires rotating.
I don't care it the wheels are rotating at 20 MPH or 2 billion MPH - the vehicle itself does not move forward . . period.

Please, explain how the belt cancels the forward progress of the plane

Read the entire opening statement by the OP.
It says that there is no forward motion of the airplane, & that is the qualifing parameter of the question.

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

If there is compensation for the forward movement, there is NO movement - it is static.

 

[Tu13erhead]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Read the entire opening statement by the OP.
It says that there is no forward motion of the airplane, & that is the qualifing parameter of the question.

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[/l]

If there is compensation for the forward movement, there is NO movement - it is static.

How exactly does the conveyor belt and free spinning wheels on the plane keep the plane from moving? What force counteracts the thrust of the plane?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Tu13erhead

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Read the entire opening statement by the OP.
It says that there is no forward motion of the airplane, & that is the qualifing parameter of the question.

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

If there is compensation for the forward movement, there is NO movement - it is static.[/b]

How exactly does the conveyor belt and free spinning wheels on the plane keep the plane from moving? What force counteracts the thrust of the plane?

I don't care !
I could care less about this force or that force - it's all moot.
The statement as written says there is no forward motion.
That's all there is to consider.
Does it move forward ?
No it does not.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Ground speed is irrelevant to flight dynamics, the only thing that matters is relative wind speed.

150 MPH motion of a vehicle into a 30 MPH head wind yields a relative wind speed of 180 MPH.
The same 150 velocity with a 30 MPH tail wind yields a relative wind speed of 120 MPH.

The statement is that not only is the wheel rotation compensated for by the belts reverse travel direction,
the belt also cancels any forward progress of the entire airplane - it is sitting still, with the tires rotating.
I don't care it the wheels are rotating at 20 MPH or 2 billion MPH - the vehicle itself does not move forward . . period.

Please, explain how the belt cancels the forward progress of the plane

Read the entire opening statement by the OP.
It says that there is no forward motion of the airplane, & that is the qualifing parameter of the question.

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

If there is compensation for the forward movement, there is NO movement - it is static.

As I've said before, the original post is terribly flawed. For one thing it says condition #1 OR #2 , which is it? When defining constants in a problem like this there can be no OR. And to compound that condition #2 is totally impossible, and against all know laws of physics

Whoever proposed this problem is either
1. Not very bright
2. Intending to stir up a contraversy

I'm leaning towards #2, because everything in the OP would like to lead you like a lost sheep to the conclusion that the plane won't take off, while common logic tells you it will

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Ground speed is irrelevant to flight dynamics, the only thing that matters is relative wind speed.

150 MPH motion of a vehicle into a 30 MPH head wind yields a relative wind speed of 180 MPH.
The same 150 velocity with a 30 MPH tail wind yields a relative wind speed of 120 MPH.

The statement is that not only is the wheel rotation compensated for by the belts reverse travel direction,
the belt also cancels any forward progress of the entire airplane - it is sitting still, with the tires rotating.
I don't care it the wheels are rotating at 20 MPH or 2 billion MPH - the vehicle itself does not move forward . . period.

Please, explain how the belt cancels the forward progress of the plane

Read the entire opening statement by the OP.
It says that there is no forward motion of the airplane, & that is the qualifing parameter of the question.

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

If there is compensation for the forward movement, there is NO movement - it is static.

As I've said before, the original post is terribly flawed. For one thing it says condition #1 or #2 , which is it? And to compound that condition #2 is totally impossible, and against all know laws of pyshics

Whoever proposed this problem is either
1. Not very bright
2. Intending to stir up a contraversy

Yes - the proposed senario is terribly flawed, but you have to stay within the parameters as presented.
That is the window of definition, regardless of the laws of physics, or life in a parallel universe.
Just like the old axioms and theorems from geometry - these are the conditions, solve the problem with the data presented,
don't go outside the box looking for validation of anything else, or solution to a question that wasn't asked.

Velocity of the vehicle is ommitted, hence no forward motion relative to a wind speed.

A better question would be:

'If an airplane fell off of a conveyor belt in the middle of the forrest, would anybody care?'

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Yes - the proposed senario is terribly flawed, but you have to stay within the parameters as presented.
That is the window of definition, regardless of the laws of physics, or life in a parallel universe.
Just like the old axioms and theorems from geometry - these are the conditions, solve the problem with the data presented,
don't go outside the box looking for validation of anything else, or solution to a question that wasn't asked.

Velocity of the vehicle is ommitted, hence no forward motion relative to a wind speed.

Now were getting somewhere!

I can agree that given the flawed conditions in the OP, the logical answer is the plane won't take off.

But, you must also agree that a flawed question results in a flawed answer

 

[skace]

Actually, the conveyor belt can compensate for the plane speed all it wants, it still won't matter. The wording is fine you still do not understand it. Compensation does not mean the plane will never move.

If the wheels can handle it, the treadmill can start at it's maximum speed.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Yes - the proposed senario is terribly flawed, but you have to stay within the parameters as presented.
That is the window of definition, regardless of the laws of physics, or life in a parallel universe.
Just like the old axioms and theorems from geometry - these are the conditions, solve the problem with the data presented,
don't go outside the box looking for validation of anything else, or solution to a question that wasn't asked.

Velocity of the vehicle is ommitted, hence no forward motion relative to a wind speed.

Now were getting somewhere!

I can agree that given the flawed conditions given in the OP, the logical answer is the plane won't take off.

But, you must agree that a flawed question results in a flawed answer

Still, the only answer that can work must stay within the bounds of the question, regardless of the extent of the flaws.
Sell limiting boundries.

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: Tu13erhead

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Read the entire opening statement by the OP.
It says that there is no forward motion of the airplane, & that is the qualifing parameter of the question.

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[/l]

If there is compensation for the forward movement, there is NO movement - it is static.

How exactly does the conveyor belt and free spinning wheels on the plane keep the plane from moving? What force counteracts the thrust of the plane?

I don't care !
I could care less about this force or that force - it's all moot.
The statement as written says there is no forward motion.
That's all there is to consider.
Does it move forward ?
No it does not.

Wrong. It says that (for condition #2) the conveyor belt moves backwards as fast as the wheels move forward. Nowhere does it say that there is no forward motion.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: JujuFish

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: Tu13erhead

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Read the entire opening statement by the OP.
It says that there is no forward motion of the airplane, & that is the qualifing parameter of the question.

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

If there is compensation for the forward movement, there is NO movement - it is static.[/b]

How exactly does the conveyor belt and free spinning wheels on the plane keep the plane from moving? What force counteracts the thrust of the plane?

I don't care !
I could care less about this force or that force - it's all moot.
The statement as written says there is no forward motion.
That's all there is to consider.
Does it move forward ?
No it does not.

Wrong. It says that (for condition #2) the conveyor belt moves backwards as fast as the wheels move forward. Nowhere does it say that there is no forward motion.

Read it!

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

'the forward movement of the plane'

how is it that hard ?

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: JujuFish

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
I don't care !
I could care less about this force or that force - it's all moot.
The statement as written says there is no forward motion.
That's all there is to consider.
Does it move forward ?
No it does not.

Wrong. It says that (for condition #2) the conveyor belt moves backwards as fast as the wheels move forward. Nowhere does it say that there is no forward motion.

Read it!

the forward movement of the plane

how is it that hard ?

I have to ask you the same thing. The plane moves forward, achieves enough velocity, and lifts off. How is that hard?