ttt for Laurentum
Mythbusters plan to uncover plane on conveyor belt
94,954 Views |
2087 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by toucan82
I really find it hard to believe that anyone lacks an understanding of the basic physics of the problem. Tell me if the plane is moving forward and I'll tell you if it will take off.
Thank you Navier-Stokes.
Thank you Navier-Stokes.
It's stupid. The Myth should have been, if put a plane on a conveyor belt, would it move forward. Not would it take off. Saying it wont take off takes the focus completely off of forward movement.
Had that been the question the whole time, I wouldn't have even questioned if the myth was plausible.
Had that been the question the whole time, I wouldn't have even questioned if the myth was plausible.
JM...yer' killin me
Here is how the myth should have been done. Drive the truck pulling the plane at 25 MPH backwards, then start the plane and once it got to the point of matching the speed, and thereby was stationary relative to the ground, then it would not take off, even though it was going forward on the belt the same speed as the belt was moving.
quote:
It's stupid.
Not understanding questions is also considered stupidity.
This kind of reminds me of convincing nonbelievers that there is a God. God could appear right before their eyes and still they would doubt.
quote:
Drive the truck pulling the plane at 25 MPH backwards, then start the plane and once it got to the point of matching the speed, and thereby was stationary relative to the ground,
thats where you're wrong tex....the plane will not be stationary relative to the ground..
... besides, everyone knows that if the conveyor had been made of snow and the plane was on skis it never would have left the ground. With a koala as the pilot.
Well I have never been on the boards, I have only gone by what I've been told of the myth.
The way they explained it on the show, with the car made it seem like the myth was indeed on if it would take off once the wheels were going 25mph on the belt going 25mph the other way.
Why even use taking off to confuse the issue. The issue is would the plane go forward. Not, Would a plane take off if it was going the same speed as a conveyor belt it was on. Because you aren't explaining the speed of the plane relative to what.
The way they explained it on the show, with the car made it seem like the myth was indeed on if it would take off once the wheels were going 25mph on the belt going 25mph the other way.
Why even use taking off to confuse the issue. The issue is would the plane go forward. Not, Would a plane take off if it was going the same speed as a conveyor belt it was on. Because you aren't explaining the speed of the plane relative to what.
tex
the conveyor, and the airplane are going at the EXACT same speed
but in opposite directions
and the airplane still moves forward relative to the ground
[This message has been edited by gambochaman (edited 1/31/2008 9:29a).]
the conveyor, and the airplane are going at the EXACT same speed
but in opposite directions
and the airplane still moves forward relative to the ground
[This message has been edited by gambochaman (edited 1/31/2008 9:29a).]
quote:
thats where you're wrong tex....the plane will not be stationary relative to the ground..
If done as stated in that scenario, it would for a moment, be going 0 mph relative to the ground. Because it would be fighting the backward momentum. And that would be the only way to get the plane to be stationary to the ground while the belt moved. And then we would have the proper myth.
quote:
Drive the truck pulling the plane at 25 MPH backwards, then start the plane and once it got to the point of matching the speed, and thereby was stationary relative to the ground, then it would not take off, even though it was going forward on the belt the same speed as the belt was moving.
jesus tap-dancing christ
quote:
.. besides, everyone knows that if the conveyor had been made of snow and the plane was on skis it never would have left the ground. With a koala as the pilot.
ok either JM is an idiot, or he is a huge troll
quote:
If done as stated in that scenario, it would for a moment, be going 0 mph relative to the ground. Because it would be fighting the backward momentum. And that would be the only way to get the plane to be stationary to the ground while the belt moved. And then we would have the proper myth.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Just let it go people. Some people can't be saved.
tex i will ask this question again..its how i got to understanding this
please explain to me the difference between the wheels in a car and the wheels in a plane
please explain to me the difference between the wheels in a car and the wheels in a plane
The tangential velocity at the point where the wheels touch the conveyor would double.
Nothing more ... nothing less.
The plane takes off.
Nothing more ... nothing less.
The plane takes off.
ttt for Laurentum
quote:
the conveyor, and the airplane are going at the EXACT same speed
That statement has no meaning unless you tell what the speeds are relative to.
If they are going the exact same speed relative to the ground, then ya, by definition they are moving apart from each other at twice the speed.
quote:
please explain to me the difference between the wheels in a car and the wheels in a plane
The wheels of the plane spin freely, whereas in a car they do not. But that's not what is the issue here.
Let's switch the car and plane in your statement. If a car and a conveyor belt were going in opposite directions at the same speed, relative to stationary, then the car's wheels would be going twice the speed of the conveyor belt.
quote:
If they are going the exact same speed relative to the ground, then ya, by definition they are moving apart from each other at twice the speed.
i think you're beginning to understand
The wheels on the car provide the mechanism for the transference of propulsion.
On the plane ... they do not.
On the plane ... they do not.
quote:
Let's switch the car and plane in your statement. If a car and a conveyor belt were going in opposite directions at the same speed, relative to stationary, then the car's wheels would be going twice the speed of the conveyor belt.
its the other way around you nimrod
I've understood the physics of the issue the entire time, you aren't telling me anything new.
What I am arguing is how the myth is missleading. The way I heard of the myth was by a buddy who described it, and even though I explained that the belt would not provide any force against the plane going forward, he described that in the myth the plane was stationary to the ground and it would still take off.
When I watched the show last night, they seemed to be posing that same assertion, while the question all along should have been "would it go forward" not "would it take off" because without going forward it can't take off. And of friggin course if you put a prop plane on a conveyor belt it wont effect it's forward momentum.
So I assumed, the mythbusters were going to drive the truck dragging the plane while it was not moving, so it would be going backwards 25 mph, then start the plane forward until it was stationary to the ground, and see if it would take off. Because that is the only scenario I could see where it would be stationary like explained to me.
What I am arguing is how the myth is missleading. The way I heard of the myth was by a buddy who described it, and even though I explained that the belt would not provide any force against the plane going forward, he described that in the myth the plane was stationary to the ground and it would still take off.
When I watched the show last night, they seemed to be posing that same assertion, while the question all along should have been "would it go forward" not "would it take off" because without going forward it can't take off. And of friggin course if you put a prop plane on a conveyor belt it wont effect it's forward momentum.
So I assumed, the mythbusters were going to drive the truck dragging the plane while it was not moving, so it would be going backwards 25 mph, then start the plane forward until it was stationary to the ground, and see if it would take off. Because that is the only scenario I could see where it would be stationary like explained to me.
gambochaman
Joined:
Nov 21, 2004
Posts:
75,402
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
its the other way around you nimrod
lmao. prove my statement wrong if you can.
i can
but i dont feel like wasting my time on you anymore
but i dont feel like wasting my time on you anymore
want a physics lesson?
Actually this would be more math.
[This message has been edited by Texaggie7nine (edited 1/31/2008 9:47a).]
Actually this would be more math.
[This message has been edited by Texaggie7nine (edited 1/31/2008 9:47a).]
i know more about physics in my pinky than you have in your entire existence 
prove it wrong then.
Featured Stories
See All
26:14
8h ago
6.2k
Brauny's Bullets: Prager shines as Aggies advance to MCWS semifinal
by Ryan Brauninger
26:14
9h ago
16k
New defensive coordinator Blake Baker key to LSU's success in 2024
by Olin Buchanan