hahaha jed.
Mythbusters plan to uncover plane on conveyor belt
111,182 Views |
2087 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by toucan82
quote:
If the ground speed of the plane and the conveyor belt speed are the same, the plane won't be able to take off.
This is where everyone gets hung up on. I posted a mathematical proof sometime ago on one of these threads, but here's the conclusion:
It is physically impossible for the conveyor belt to match the ground speed of the airplane. Any increase in the conveyor belt speed will result in an equal and instantaneous acceleration of the landing gear wheels. In other words, there will always be forward motion of the airplane (and thus, generation of lift) regardless of the speed of the conveyor belt.
Now for a little ditty to convey...
"cause I'm leavin, on a prop plane
I don't know when I'll take off again.....
Oh babe, I hate to go..."
Mythbusters rules!
[This message has been edited by fahraint (edited 1/31/2008 12:42p).]
"cause I'm leavin, on a prop plane
I don't know when I'll take off again.....
Oh babe, I hate to go..."
Mythbusters rules!
[This message has been edited by fahraint (edited 1/31/2008 12:42p).]
I can't believe some of you dumbasses still don't believe it after it was flat out done on Mythbusters.
conveyor = moot > Texaggie7nine
The question that Mythbusters did NOT answer, however, was if the conveyor was African or European!!!
quote:
This is where everyone gets hung up on. I posted a mathematical proof sometime ago on one of these threads, but here's the conclusion:
It is physically impossible for the conveyor belt to match the ground speed of the airplane. Any increase in the conveyor belt speed will result in an equal and instantaneous acceleration of the landing gear wheels. In other words, there will always be forward motion of the airplane (and thus, generation of lift) regardless of the speed of the conveyor belt.
Exactly. The entire wording of the myth is based on fallacy.
When your 'logic' tells you something, its difficult to convince yourself otherwise, regardless of how incorrect that logic may be.
Logic says the plane takes off.
quote:
Exactly. The entire wording of the myth is based on fallacy.
No. The myth is based on lack of reading comprehension of the question...
Texaggie7nine works in IT. That explains much about his intelligence.
I still want to know if the conveyor is matching the ground speed or the wheel speed...
this gives two very different equations...
ground speed:
v_conveyor -> = v_plane <-
wheel speed:
v_conveyor -> = v_conveyor -> + v_wheels
and thus x cannot equal x+c if c does not equal 0...
catastrophic failure.
[This message has been edited by TexasRebel (edited 1/31/2008 2:18p).]
this gives two very different equations...
ground speed:
v_conveyor -> = v_plane <-
wheel speed:
v_conveyor -> = v_conveyor -> + v_wheels
and thus x cannot equal x+c if c does not equal 0...
catastrophic failure.
[This message has been edited by TexasRebel (edited 1/31/2008 2:18p).]
And he gives the rest of us IT folk a bad name.
[This message has been edited by Red Skye (edited 1/31/2008 4:35p).]
[This message has been edited by Red Skye (edited 1/31/2008 4:35p).]
quote:
I still want to know if the conveyor is matching the ground speed or the wheel speed...
this gives two very different equations...
ground speed:
v_conveyor -> = v_plane <-
wheel speed:
v_conveyor -> = v_conveyor -> + v_wheels
and thus x cannot equal x+c if c does not equal 0...
catastrophic failure.
I get where you were going with this now. I is an idiot.
[This message has been edited by Red Skye (edited 2/5/2008 1:28p).]
quote:
The myth is based on lack of reading comprehension of the question...
reading comprehension of WHICH question? It's not like there is an official version of this.
----------------------------------------------------
the next attack will probably be in NY...maybe a nuck... -- overwater
Exactly. These g00bers think they know the exact framing of the official myth word for word.
The entire myth is moot, because it's never specified what speed in relation to what.
Every person at work that I have talked to all assumed the plane being stationary was a given in the myth. Because, of #@$#@ing course the plane would take off if it was moving at take off speed in relation to the ground.
The entire myth is moot, because it's never specified what speed in relation to what.
Every person at work that I have talked to all assumed the plane being stationary was a given in the myth. Because, of #@$#@ing course the plane would take off if it was moving at take off speed in relation to the ground.
quote:
The entire myth is moot, because it's never specified what speed in relation to what.
*sigh*
quote:
Every person at work that I have talked to all assumed the plane being stationary was a given in the myth. Because, of #@$#@ing course the plane would take off if it was moving at take off speed in relation to the ground.
You are either the most persistent troll ever, or the biggest freakin' moron ever. Which is it?
he seems to have backed himself into a corner on both Texags and in real life. Voting for the latter.
quote:
Every person at work that I have talked to all assumed the plane being stationary was a given in the myth. Because, of #@$#@ing course the plane would take off if it was moving at take off speed in relation to the ground.
Your workplace seems to be full of idiots. The plane WILL NEVER be stationary. Period.
It can be stationary only if the experiment was done like I said earlier, and only for a moment.
But what I don't get is why anyone would argue that it wouldn't take off if it was moving at takeoff speed in relation to the ground. There's not even a friggin argument to be made. Neither is there one for it taking off when it was stationary.
So why even do the myth and confuse everyone and make them argue over semantics and wording?
But what I don't get is why anyone would argue that it wouldn't take off if it was moving at takeoff speed in relation to the ground. There's not even a friggin argument to be made. Neither is there one for it taking off when it was stationary.
So why even do the myth and confuse everyone and make them argue over semantics and wording?
What would prevent the plane from moving forward relative to the ground?
Having backwards momentum from going backwards at 25mph on the belt before it started its engine.
quote:
But what I don't get is why anyone would argue that it wouldn't take off if it was moving at takeoff speed in relation to the ground.
Because this is obviously not obvious in the given experiment.
WTF are you talking about??? No one seems to be confused but you.
quote:
Having backwards momentum from going backwards at 25mph on the belt before it started its engine.
In which case it would still take off.
What would cause the plane to go backwards at 25 mph?
I apologize if this question has been asked, but HOW IN THE SAM HELL WOULD THE PLANE EVER BE STATIONARY RELATIVE TO THE GROUND?
DRAW A FREAKING FREE-BODY DIAGRAM!
DRAW A FREAKING FREE-BODY DIAGRAM!
the thrust of the engine would simply result in the wheels spinning another 25mph faster when it did start. and it would still take off.
what's so difficult about this.
[This message has been edited by Bob the Enzyte Guy (edited 1/31/2008 4:57p).]
what's so difficult about this.
[This message has been edited by Bob the Enzyte Guy (edited 1/31/2008 4:57p).]
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!
[This message has been edited by Ag_E Aggie (edited 1/31/2008 5:01p).]
skye, if you really think that fail pic was warranted, you should post one for yourself...
...and then take algebra again.
The only way to keep the plane from moving forward is for the rolling resistance to equal the thrust of the engine, which would make the air speed of the plane zero. In order to accomplish this, you must assume that the plane and the conveyor are both indestructible...which is impossible. This is necessary because while your sensors and feedback attempt to make x=x+c for c!=0 the conveyor will accelerate infinitely until it spins so fast that the rolling ********* of the plane equals the thrust of the plane.
Theoretically it is possible...but in reality, where things break and have limits, it is not.
...and then take algebra again.
The only way to keep the plane from moving forward is for the rolling resistance to equal the thrust of the engine, which would make the air speed of the plane zero. In order to accomplish this, you must assume that the plane and the conveyor are both indestructible...which is impossible. This is necessary because while your sensors and feedback attempt to make x=x+c for c!=0 the conveyor will accelerate infinitely until it spins so fast that the rolling ********* of the plane equals the thrust of the plane.
Theoretically it is possible...but in reality, where things break and have limits, it is not.
quote:
reading comprehension of WHICH question? It's not like there is an official version of this.
This entire thread was based upon this question, posted in the OP:
quote:
Finally, Adam and Jamie carefully navigate their way through a myth that has baffled everyone from web bloggers to pilots. If a plane is traveling at takeoff speed on a conveyor belt, and the belt is matching that speed in the opposite direction, can the plane take off?
There is nothing in that sentence that states that the speed of the airplane has to be relative to the conveyor belt...
If you're talking about another way of stating the question, start your own damn thread and see if it gets to page 49!!!
video?
Just let it go... it's moot.
Of course it would take off eventually when it was moving 25mph relative to the GROUND.
However, if the plane was off, brakes on, and the belt was going backwards at 25mph, then the plane would be going 25mph backwards.
You start the plane, and start going forwards. In that transition from going 25mph backwards to 25mph forwards it will get to 0mph in relation to the ground on the way. At that moment, the plane will be going 25mph away from the direction the belt is going 25mph and at that very moment would not be taking off. It would not be until the plane was going 25mph forward, in relation to the ground, at which time it will be going 50mph in the opposite direction of the belt.
However, if the plane was off, brakes on, and the belt was going backwards at 25mph, then the plane would be going 25mph backwards.
You start the plane, and start going forwards. In that transition from going 25mph backwards to 25mph forwards it will get to 0mph in relation to the ground on the way. At that moment, the plane will be going 25mph away from the direction the belt is going 25mph and at that very moment would not be taking off. It would not be until the plane was going 25mph forward, in relation to the ground, at which time it will be going 50mph in the opposite direction of the belt.
Featured Stories
See All
38:51
1d ago
7.6k
77:19
1d ago
1.5k
Video Replay: Student Bonfire 2025
by TexAgs
5 Thoughts: Texas 70, No. 13 Texas A&M 69
by Luke Evangelist
1:29
17h ago
819