The ONLY THING the conveyer belt will do is make the wills spin twice as fast.

Unless you tie the plane down it will move forward until the air passes over the wings fast enought to cause lift. Just like every single time the plane has taken off before.

Surly this has been said a 100 times already in this thread.

(It's no different then if Coryatt made the hit instead of Buckley, the defenders jaw would still be broke)

Can we get the OG Plane/Conveyor thread, please?

The conveyor is moot.

Haven't seen this pointed out yet. If the scenario is the plane is moving to the right and the conveyor is moving to the left at the same speed therefore the plane is standing still. The conclusion collapses because the first premise, that the plane is "moving to the right", contradicts the conclusion that the plane will sit still.

Anyway, if we look at the real world scenario, the answer should be obvious if you don't get caught in the mental obstacle that tells you the plane will remain stationary for the sake of argument because it won't. Though the plane and the wheels are separate systems conceptually there is a connection with rolling resistance and bearing friction but it's a very small factor.

Thrust is a force which results in a more or less fixed acceleration. Not a fixed speed. This is where a number off you get lost conceptually. Thrust results in a CHANGE in airspeed. Not ground speed. In this case it increases said speed. No fixed pounds of thrust will practically result in a fixed speed along the ground. In order for the conveyor to influence the plane to stop accelerating, the conveyor would need to transmit force equal to the force of the plane's thrust. By the time this would be possible given some outrageous theoretical assumptions, and stupidly high magnitudes, the plane's speed would likely be well above takeoff speeds. This should be enough to get you past that assertion that the plane would remain still.

If we assume that the conveyor could move at a rediculously high rate of speed such that the rolling resistance would cause a force equal and opposite the plane's thrust, the large magnitude of forces would not be applied to the plane along the same point vertically and would likely cause the plane to flip forward due to the torque it would apply to the airframe. Further exemplifying how rediculous it is to consider those components of the argument.

Fine print:
Drag forces and other nonconservative forces will eventually cause a zero net force with increased speed and will result in a terminal speed given a constant thrust. But once again the order of magnitude is too low to keep a plane standing still in a takeoff roll and such conditions would take far too long to play out. Friction of wheel bearings are not influenced by speed on any measurable order of magnitude to matter in this scenario either.

For all intents (TLDR):!The conveyor is moot.

It's funny to see people keep getting caught up on this. Like most riddles, the answer lies in what the words of the question really mean.

We can test this. I hear there are a few planes sitting around, not going anywhere for a while.

Kceovaisnt- said:

---

Haven't seen this pointed out yet. If the scenario is the plane is moving to the right and the conveyor is moving to the left at the same speed therefore the plane is standing still. The conclusion collapses because the first premise, that the plane is "moving to the right", contradicts the conclusion that the plane will sit still.

Anyway, if we look at the real world scenario, the answer should be obvious if you don't get caught in the mental obstacle that tells you the plane will remain stationary for the sake of argument because it won't. Though the plane and the wheels are separate systems conceptually there is a connection with rolling resistance and bearing friction but it's a very small factor.

Thrust is a force which results in a more or less fixed acceleration. Not a fixed speed. This is where a number off you get lost conceptually. Thrust results in a CHANGE in airspeed. Not ground speed. In this case it increases said speed. No fixed pounds of thrust will practically result in a fixed speed along the ground. In order for the conveyor to influence the plane to stop accelerating, the conveyor would need to transmit force equal to the force of the plane's thrust. By the time this would be possible given some outrageous theoretical assumptions, and stupidly high magnitudes, the plane's speed would likely be well above takeoff speeds. This should be enough to get you past that assertion that the plane would remain still.

If we assume that the conveyor could move at a rediculously high rate of speed such that the rolling resistance would cause a force equal and opposite the plane's thrust, the large magnitude of forces would not be applied to the plane along the same point vertically and would likely cause the plane to flip forward due to the torque it would apply to the airframe. Further exemplifying how rediculous it is to consider those components of the argument.

Fine print:
Drag forces and other nonconservative forces will eventually cause a zero net force with increased speed and will result in a terminal speed given a constant thrust. But once again the order of magnitude is too low to keep a plane standing still in a takeoff roll and such conditions would take far too long to play out. Friction of wheel bearings are not influenced by speed on any measurable order of magnitude to matter in this scenario either.

For all intents (TLDR):!The conveyor is moot.

---

What's ridiculous here is your inability to correctly spell ridiculous. Don't go trying to sound all brainy and **** and botch the spelling of a common word, dude.

The conveyer is mute!

And why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?

Yesterday, I parked my car in a tow away zone ...

When I came back, the entire area was missing.




- Steven Wright

Slicer97 said:

---

Kceovaisnt- said:

---

Haven't seen this pointed out yet. If the scenario is the plane is moving to the right and the conveyor is moving to the left at the same speed therefore the plane is standing still. The conclusion collapses because the first premise, that the plane is "moving to the right", contradicts the conclusion that the plane will sit still.

Anyway, if we look at the real world scenario, the answer should be obvious if you don't get caught in the mental obstacle that tells you the plane will remain stationary for the sake of argument because it won't. Though the plane and the wheels are separate systems conceptually there is a connection with rolling resistance and bearing friction but it's a very small factor.

Thrust is a force which results in a more or less fixed acceleration. Not a fixed speed. This is where a number off you get lost conceptually. Thrust results in a CHANGE in airspeed. Not ground speed. In this case it increases said speed. No fixed pounds of thrust will practically result in a fixed speed along the ground. In order for the conveyor to influence the plane to stop accelerating, the conveyor would need to transmit force equal to the force of the plane's thrust. By the time this would be possible given some outrageous theoretical assumptions, and stupidly high magnitudes, the plane's speed would likely be well above takeoff speeds. This should be enough to get you past that assertion that the plane would remain still.

If we assume that the conveyor could move at a rediculously high rate of speed such that the rolling resistance would cause a force equal and opposite the plane's thrust, the large magnitude of forces would not be applied to the plane along the same point vertically and would likely cause the plane to flip forward due to the torque it would apply to the airframe. Further exemplifying how rediculous it is to consider those components of the argument.

Fine print:
Drag forces and other nonconservative forces will eventually cause a zero net force with increased speed and will result in a terminal speed given a constant thrust. But once again the order of magnitude is too low to keep a plane standing still in a takeoff roll and such conditions would take far too long to play out. Friction of wheel bearings are not influenced by speed on any measurable order of magnitude to matter in this scenario either.

For all intents (TLDR):!The conveyor is moot.

---

What's ridiculous here is your inability to correctly spell ridiculous. Don't go trying to sound all brainy and **** and botch the spelling of a common word, dude.

---

That was your takeaway from all that? I suppose you agree with the entirety of my post then?

You seem like a fun individual.

gdamit I just wanted the original plane post please

Not necessarily. Once I came across such an egregious misspelling, I dismissed the rest of it as incoherent rambling. I just couldn't take it seriously at that point.

Slicer97 said:

---

Not necessarily. Once I came across such an egregious misspelling, I dismissed the rest of it as incoherent rambling. I just couldn't take it seriously at that point.

---

That seems rather contrived, ignorant, and in poor character. Inserting yourself in a discussion to not really contribute but to "dismiss" my post. It's practically an admission that you are unable to discuss the topic. Why not just keep that to yourself?

Are you new to this board?

Is it obvious? I don't gen board much.

Hang around awhile. You get numb to it eventually.

Biz Ag said:

---

And why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?

---

Why did kamikaze pilots wear helmets?!

the fact this was ever a debate always made me sad

DannyDuberstein said:

---

the fact this was ever a debate always made me sad

---

Moot Court

The real secret here is to use an escalator for the plane. Then it will fly if fast enough :P

FFS, I know I'm making a mistake getting involved in this discussion with you idiots, but this is the correct explanation:

Removing all real-world limitations and assuming that the conveyor belt can continuously match the increasing wheel speed, the wheel speed and conveyor speed would both increase to infinity in an infinitesimal period of time. This creates a system that negates the ability of the wheel to roll. Think about it. In the scenario, the wheels and the treadmill always move at the same speed in opposite directions. We can observe this system quite easily by fixing the speed of the wheels and the conveyor at a constant rate. The simplest fixed rate to create is zero. Lock the wheels and put the plane on a normal runway and we have a system whereby the wheel speed is always the same as the conveyor belt.

If the jet engines can produce enough thrust to overcome the stationary resistance of the tire against the ground and gain enough speed for takeoff, then the plane will take off.

I don't think the plane will take off