Plane on a conveyor belt

[JN210]

^no kiddin? I think I will see if my teacher has anything more to say on this subject, I will show him what you all think and have him read up a bit on this, then I will see what he has to say.

[bubba]

HandoEX;199296 wrote:
Nope, Brian reads them and then gives me cliffs:)

Didnt we agree at Bdubs that every post over a certain length needs to have cliff notes...some of us dont have the time or attention span to read some of this, lol....

[JN210]

what would the cliff note be for this thread now? "so far, everyone is trying to prove their little points"

[DaveH]

Thrash's argument theoretically holds up, but if you are talking about any modern airplane then it will not hold up. The friction from the landing gear rolling on a conveyor belt is insignificant. Thrash's analogy about holding the car with your arms is a good one, but there is a significant difference in strength between a human's arms and a jet engine.

Maybe Orville and Wilbur's plane may have had a tough time taking off on the conveyor.

[DaveH]

JN210;199302 wrote:
what would the cliff note be for this thread now? "so far, everyone is trying to prove their little points"

Smart people are try to explain to Retards that a plane on a conveyor belt will still take off.

:icon_santa:

[JN210]

^lol, good one.

[Used]

Is it a propeller airplane or a jet airplane.. It might have been stated but im not going to go back and read the rest of that..

[Guest]

for the most part, it doesn't matter if it is a prop/jet/rocket plane.

[JN210]

The wheels can move as fast as possible but the plane will go NO WHERE without AIR lift which is not achieved by sitting still.

[KA-T_240]

if the plane is moving, air will be flowing across the wings. it doesnt matter how fast/slow the conveyor or the wheels on the plane are moving.

[Guest]

JN210;199320 wrote:
The wheels can move as fast as possible but the plane will go NO WHERE without AIR lift which is not achieved by sitting still.

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

let me spell this out

plane moves ----------------------------------------> at 180mph (relative to ground)

conveyor moves <------------------------------------------ at 180mph (relative to ground)

wheels spin clockwise at the same rate they would if the plane were traveling 360mph (180mph rotation from each force being applied to them).

Plane DOES NOT SIT STILL, the engines are pushing it ----> at 180mph. The plane is moving 180mph (I use 180mph as that is the speed a 747 needs for takeoff) vs the stationary ground.

There is absolutely no way (with a properly functioning plane) that the conveyor can prevent the plane from rolling forward along its surface. The conveyor does not/can not keep the plane from moving forward. If it can, I challenge you and your teacher to show me the physics on how it can be held in place (aside from anchoring the plane to the ground)

Basically, you are confusing speed with force. The conveyor does not produce enough force to hold the plane stationary. Period.

Please tell me your physics teacher did not tell you to type that response either. If so, it explains a lot about why kids are dumber than ever before (and if so, yes that was a direct shot at you and your physics teacher...if not, it was just a shot at you.)

[Guest]

JN210;199320 wrote:
The wheels can move as fast as possible but the plane will go NO WHERE without AIR lift which is not achieved by sitting still.

You are correct, a stationary plane will not take off. This plane is not stationary and the conveyor has no means to make it remain stationary. (civil answer/cliff notes for my previous post)

[SmitEvo]

I dont think you can call anyone an idiot in this situation considerent everywhere you look on this subject you can find plausable reasoning on each side such as the bernoulli effect not taking place or the wheels being irrelevant. I think it will take off unless the brakes are applied

[Guest]

Nope, I can call them an idiot for not understanding the laws of physics. Besides, mythbusters has said it will fly (episode Jan 30....see some earlier posts in this thread where I deciphered the results early), nearly everyone on phys.org says it will fly.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever been persuaded to think it will not fly when they originally thought it could, though thousands have been persuaded that it will fly when they originally thought it wouldn't.

Heck, one guy on offtopic.com has a $10 bet to ANYONE who thinks it won't fly (he's going to make $680 btw) when mythbusters tests it out.

[Guest]

I'm going to repeat my original analogy of this subject

tjamz;89406 wrote:
Think about it this way: if you are driving a motorcycle with a side car on it at 50MPH and the conveyor is ONLY on the side car you can still drive the motorcycle at 50MPH, however the sidecars wheel(s) will be traveling 100MPH. Same principal applies here. The planes motors providing thrust would be the motorcycle in above analogy and the planes wheels would be the side car. It is very possible for the plane to take off.

[MisterCMK]

Dammit Dave, answer my post about a jet engine on a Supra!!!

[bubba]

JN210;199302 wrote:
what would the cliff note be for this thread now? "so far, everyone is trying to prove their little points"

I said cliff notes when someone's posts are like a couple paragraphs long...not on a whole thread...reading > u...noob

Obviously your english teachers fail at life too....

[harm]

okay.. I haven't read the last six pages of this yet.. but I love this thread.

note in my second post (the unedited one) I said yes, it's going to take off
..and still got ripped on for saying it wasn't, even after explaining why it would.
nobody reads my posts anyway, yeah.. I like throwing fuel on the fire. can't believe we made 6 more pages while I was at work.. and I can't believe how loud the music next door is right now.

Bah, I'm going to read 15-20+ when I get back from dinner. tjamz, good thread. I can't believe we're still arguing it at this point, unless I try to (not) think like I was thinking this morning. what I was saying seemed to make sense then.

plane takes off, if we take the facts stated in the question as absolutes.

[JN210]

tjamz;199323 wrote:
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

let me spell this out

plane moves ----------------------------------------> at 180mph (relative to ground)

conveyor moves <------------------------------------------ at 180mph (relative to ground)

wheels spin clockwise at the same rate they would if the plane were traveling 360mph (180mph rotation from each force being applied to them).

Plane DOES NOT SIT STILL, the engines are pushing it ----> at 180mph. The plane is moving 180mph (I use 180mph as that is the speed a 747 needs for takeoff) vs the stationary ground.

There is absolutely no way (with a properly functioning plane) that the conveyor can prevent the plane from rolling forward along its surface. The conveyor does not/can not keep the plane from moving forward. If it can, I challenge you and your teacher to show me the physics on how it can be held in place (aside from anchoring the plane to the ground)

Basically, you are confusing speed with force. The conveyor does not produce enough force to hold the plane stationary. Period.

Please tell me your physics teacher did not tell you to type that response either. If so, it explains a lot about why kids are dumber than ever before (and if so, yes that was a direct shot at you and your physics teacher...if not, it was just a shot at you.)

I will not take it as a "shot" but I will ignore it and im still sticking to my answer that no it wont fly.:icon_cheers:

[JN210]

bubba;199339 wrote:
I said cliff notes when someone's posts are like a couple paragraphs long...not on a whole thread...reading > u...noob

Obviously your english teachers fail at life too....

I go to a school out in the middle of frickin nowhere....go figure...