Plane on a conveyor belt
-
tjamz;199277 wrote:
Your physics teacher should be fired. Period. Feel free to show them my post here, if they have a problem with that statement, they can call me at 701-541-3484. I am dead serious. He/She should be fired.woah...easy, I just asked him if it would take off and he simply gave me an answer.
*1989 Nissan 300ZX Z31 *
> DelSlow;262050 wrote:
> I like the new JN210 -
An airboat does not slow down going upstream or downstream in the current, nor does a seaplane
I beleive these statements are both false. You are in effect asserting that fluid dynamics does not exist.
Have you ever been to the lake before? Stand on the dock, hold on to a boat via a peice of rope. Are you saying the rope tension never changes because of waves or currents in the water? Are you saying that no matter what the water is doing, the tension on that rope (and via extension, the force you apply) never changes? I don't think you are...
An external force (you, attached to the land), trying to hold an object still in a moving fluid (air and water are both fluids) will need to vary your supplying force to counteract changes in the force the fluid is applying to the object.
Yes, but once I get the car stopped from rolling backwards, you can crank that belt up as high as you want and the difference in force required becomes negligible. IOW once I have the car stopped on the belt, it doesn't matter if the belt is moving 5mph or 500mph.
I see. In that case, next time someone is doing a 1000hp dyno run, instead of using multiple ratchet straps, why don't you just hold onto the car yourself?
If you were to replace the "you" in that picture with a spring, the spring will slowly compress as the speed increases, because we are talking about an imperfect system with non-zero mechanical losses.
It takes off pretty much no matter what......if you have a long enough belt, and large enough fuel cell, you can get that belt moving 300mph prior to firing up the jets and the plane will (in time...has to overcome momentum only) move forward and take off.
This is incorrect. If for no other reason than there is no ground-launched lift-effect aircraft with a takeoff speed of 300mph. You won't see a plane making 300mph on land during a takeoff run
In any case, suppose the landing gear is a square block. The plane will certainly not take off.
Suppose that the landing gear is a frictionless rolling assembly. The plane will definitely take off.
Reality is somewhere inbetween. That's why you can't make this an absolute statement.
I'm not sure what physical property of aircraft you are referring to such that you can claim that no matter what, given enough time and distance, the plane will accelerate enough to take off.
-
tjamz;199277 wrote:
Your physics teacher should be fired. Period. Feel free to show them my post here, if they have a problem with that statement, they can call me at 701-541-3484. I am dead serious. He/She should be fired.that's probably a bit harsh. A teachers job is to indoctrinate students with government propoganda, not solve riddles
-
thrash;199282 wrote:
I beleive these statements are both false. You are in effect asserting that fluid dynamics does not exist.Have you ever been to the lake before? Stand on the dock, hold on to a boat via a peice of rope. Are you saying the rope tension never changes because of waves or currents in the water? Are you saying that no matter what the water is doing, the tension on that rope (and via extension, the force you apply) never changes? I don't think you are...
An external force (you, attached to the land), trying to hold an object still in a moving fluid (air and water are both fluids) will need to vary your supplying force to counteract changes in the force the fluid is applying to the object.
Ok...I may be off in my assessment here, I was merely going off what was presented to me on phys.org and some pilot forum I was on. The conclusion, on both, was that once the airboat/seaplane were moving, the waters direction & speed had a very minimal affect on whether they could take off (or travel in opposite directions in the case of the airboat which is not designed for flying) or not.
I see. In that case, next time someone is doing a 1000hp dyno run, instead of using multiple ratchet straps, why don't you just hold onto the car yourself?
**
This is a bit different though, in this case the car is pushing the rollers, not vice-versa, so therefore the car is generating the forward motion. See my analogy of a toy car on a belt sander earlier in this thread for reasons why I think I can hold a car from crushing me on a conveyor belt (assuming the car is stationary and in neutral at the start of the test and I don't have to overcome momentum as well)**If you were to replace the "you" in that picture with a spring, the spring will slowly compress as the speed increases, because we are talking about an imperfect system with non-zero mechanical losses.
This is incorrect. If for no other reason than there is no ground-launched lift-effect aircraft with a takeoff speed of 300mph. You won't see a plane making 300mph on land during a takeoff run
I said belt speed, not plane speed. The plane (if its a 747 for example) will take off when it achieves 180mph relative to the ground.
In any case, suppose the landing gear is a square block. The plane will certainly not take off.
If the square block is extremely slippery, it certainly could.
Suppose that the landing gear is a frictionless rolling assembly. The plane will definitely take off.
Assume it has its normal friction and it will as well
Reality is somewhere inbetween. That's why you can't make this an absolute statement.
**I'm pretty sure that just about everyone would agree that the scenario at hand assumes that the aircraft in this riddle is in normal operating condition. Throwing oddball scenarios out there certainly make it possible for it not to take off. Why not say something like "well, what if the plane has 3 engines pushing it forward and 9 engines pushing it backwards and the 3 forward engines only produce 10000 lbs of thrust each and the 9 backwards engines produce 100000000000 lbs of thrust each...can the plane take off?" Of course not. **
I'm not sure what physical property of aircraft you are referring to such that you can claim that no matter what, given enough time and distance, the plane will accelerate enough to take off.
So long as the aircraft can generate enough thrust, in enough space, with enough fuel, to overcome the momentum generated by the plane moving backwards at 300mph, the plane will take off. Every time.
Again...clarified.
As for the original question, the plane will always take off under normal conditions/parameters of the question. There is absolutely nothing that the BELT itself can do to prevent this if it follows rules of the question. The only thing that can prevent the plane from taking off is the plane itself.
-
JN210;199287 wrote:
I think someone should actually try this at home....with an RC gas plane and somekind of belt....just a thought.glad you asked...
-
JN210;199280 wrote:
woah...easy, I just asked him if it would take off and he simply gave me an answer.And I think he is retarded. Have him read the whole thread, and seriously think about what he said. If he still thinks that way, he should be fired.
-
HandoEX;199290 wrote:
tjamz and thrash have hereby gone completely crazy.lol, I think only he and I actually read each others threads.
-
In that case, brian is crazier than both thrash and I.
-
I didn't get to 7059 posts on this forum by sitting around and not responding...
-
^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.
*1989 Nissan 300ZX Z31 *
> DelSlow;262050 wrote:
> I like the new JN210 -
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
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
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:
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login