Can the airplane take off?

[BrownTown]

2+2 = 4

unless you are Smack down and interpret the '+' to be a concatenation operator, then:

2+2 = 22

clearly both interpretation are entirely valid? I'm sure my calculus teacher will give me credit after I explain that to him. Also, on my physics homework I thought E was just a random constant, nobody explicitly told me to replace it was the electric field.

 

[Netopia]

I keep coming back and looking, just to see if anyone else ends up looking even more foolish than I did. So far, only one.



Joe

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
2+2 = 4

unless you are Smack down and interpret the '+' to be a concatenation operator, then:

2+2 = 22

clearly both interpretation are entirely valid? I'm sure my calculus teacher will give me credit after I explain that to him. Also, on my physics homework I thought E was just a random constant, nobody explicitly told me to replace it was the electric field.

Perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove...Do you expect us to believe that water soaks into a grit faster on your stove than it does on any plane on the rest of the earth? Are these magic grits?
/Vinney

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
2+2 = 4

unless you are Smack down and interpret the '+' to be a concatenation operator, then:

2+2 = 22

clearly both interpretation are entirely valid? I'm sure my calculus teacher will give me credit after I explain that to him. Also, on my physics homework I thought E was just a random constant, nobody explicitly told me to replace it was the electric field.

Of course a stats major would say: where 2+2 is usual 4. It is improbable that it is anything else, but still we cannot rule it out.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: smack Down

Again you FBD is only valid if you read the problem as the treadmill tracks the ground speed of the plane.

There is no other coherent interpretation of the problem.

If it tracks the speed of the plane relitive to the treadmill surface

Depending on what you mean, this is either a meaningless tautology, or it is an impossibility.

If you mean that the treadmill surface moves at a rate relative to the plane that is equal to the plane's rate relative to the treadmill surface, you have stated a tautology. At any speed this must be true, so it means nothing.

If you mean that the treadmill surface moves at a rate relative to the ground that is equal to the plane's rate relative to the treadmill surface, you have stated an impossibility. In order for the treadmill surface to register a change in motion from zero velocity to a state of motion, the plane must accelerate. When the plane accelerates relative to the treadmill surface, then the treadmill surface accelerates relative to the ground. The acceleration of the treadmill surface relative to the ground necessarily increases the acceleration of the plane relative to the treadmill surface, however. Therefore there is no way that the two relative rates (plane to treadmill and treadmill to ground) can be simultaneously equal, so that interpretation is incoherent.

You, sir, have failed utterly.

You failed at math
They are equal if and only if the ground speed of the plane is zero. Therefor the plane can't take off.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: AeroEngy
I stayed out of this discussion for awhile and I am probably stupid for jumping back in but. Here is a new FBD of the senario New FBD Link I used real aircraft data and acounted for the angular acceleration of the tires and rollign friction. Previously I ignored the required force to impart an angular acceleration on the tires and only considered friction and smackdown called me on it. However, after accounting for this as seen in the FBD the airplane still takes off with just a slightly lower acceleration. If I made a mathmatical error or implemented an equation incorrectly I will consider your input because I am not always perfect *just most of the time* and it was been a few years since my kinematics and dynamics courses.

Again you FBD is only valid if you read the problem as the treadmill tracks the ground speed of the plane. If it tracks the speed of the plane relitive to the treadmill surface then dw/dt = 2a / r is just wrong. The plane wouldn't be a constant torque on the tires there would be an ever increasing torque on the tires.

Look, monkey, aircraft measure their forward motion with an airspeed indicator not a speedometer attached to some magical treadmill they happen to be on. The original question said as a GIVEN that the aircraft moved forward.

I have a question for YOU. How far are you willing to take all this just to avoid admitting you are both wrong and thought a fool?

I fail to see how the instruments used in an airplane matter.

The question doesn't give a reference for what the airplane moves forward relitive to. It could be the ground or the treadmill. I read it as the treadmill.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: randay
DrPizza I dub thee "HT Trollslayer".

This smack down guy is just trolling, plain and simple. I pointed out that for his scenario to work the treadmill would be accelerating infinitely. At the time he thought that the treadmills speed would become constant. Now he is going back on that thought and his answer now involves a treadmill that continuously accelerates at a rate which imparts enough torque on the airplanes wheels to counter the thrust from its jet engines, while giving no real word numbers or measurements. He is just trolling for some reason and getting a kick out of you all telling him how dumb he is. Maybe he is some kind of weirdo of the "dance puppets dance" variety. We would be all better off just ignoring him. Please stop feeding the troll.

Also smackdown is wrong no matter how he interprets the question. In his interpretation the airplane would end up moving backwards, infinitely, and just take off backwards. Who cares if it crashes a few seconds later or resembles a baA. d crash at a Nascar event? It takes off regardless. Sorry to let you down smacky, but youre wrong no matter what.

The plane takes off.

A. THe control systems defines that the airplane can't move forward or backwards.
B How the control system accomplishes that isn't my problem
C The plane doesn't move see A.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: smack Down
A. THe control systems defines that the airplane can't move forward or backwards.
B How the control system accomplishes that isn't my problem
C The plane doesn't move see A.

A. The airplane moves forward and takes off normally.
B. How the airplane accomplishes that isn't my problem
C. The plane takes off see A.

 

[Ruptga]

It would only take off if it got enough air speed. Ground speed (speed relative to the ground) doesn't mean beans when you're talking planes' takeoff ability, it's the airspeed (the speed the air is moving over the wings). For example, they point he aircraft carriers into the wind so it's like the planes are starting from 35 knots instead of the 12 (or whatever it is) that the ship is actually moving at. Planes can actually become airborne as they are taxiing around at 35 knots (groundspeed) if there is a powerful headon gust.

 

[BrownTown]

OK, look this problem was solved 15 pages ago, we don't need 100 more people coming in posting what we already know, everyone except for smack Troll understands that the plane takes off, all you are doing now is feeding the TROLLS.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
OK, look this problem was solved 15 pages ago, we don't need 100 more people coming in posting what we already know, everyone except for smack Troll understands that the plane takes off, all you are doing now is feeding the TROLLS.

This thread is now about steak.

What temperature must the fat on the edge of a steak reach so that it just hits that black crispy goodness?

 

[bobsmith1492]

MMmmm.... I haven't had a good steak for a while now; been living on pasta for the marathon.

My dad just got an elk and a black bear out in Idaho; I did have some of the elk already, but would love some more. Hey, anyone know of any good bear recipes? I hear it needs a lot of cooking to be any good...

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: randay
DrPizza I dub thee "HT Trollslayer".

This smack down guy is just trolling, plain and simple. I pointed out that for his scenario to work the treadmill would be accelerating infinitely. At the time he thought that the treadmills speed would become constant. Now he is going back on that thought and his answer now involves a treadmill that continuously accelerates at a rate which imparts enough torque on the airplanes wheels to counter the thrust from its jet engines, while giving no real word numbers or measurements. He is just trolling for some reason and getting a kick out of you all telling him how dumb he is. Maybe he is some kind of weirdo of the "dance puppets dance" variety. We would be all better off just ignoring him. Please stop feeding the troll.

Also smackdown is wrong no matter how he interprets the question. In his interpretation the airplane would end up moving backwards, infinitely, and just take off backwards. Who cares if it crashes a few seconds later or resembles a baA. d crash at a Nascar event? It takes off regardless. Sorry to let you down smacky, but youre wrong no matter what.

The plane takes off.

A. THe control systems defines that the airplane can't move forward or backwards.
B How the control system accomplishes that isn't my problem
C The plane doesn't move see A.

Item B is your problem if you are specifying something that violates the laws of physics.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: randay
DrPizza I dub thee "HT Trollslayer".

This smack down guy is just trolling, plain and simple. I pointed out that for his scenario to work the treadmill would be accelerating infinitely. At the time he thought that the treadmills speed would become constant. Now he is going back on that thought and his answer now involves a treadmill that continuously accelerates at a rate which imparts enough torque on the airplanes wheels to counter the thrust from its jet engines, while giving no real word numbers or measurements. He is just trolling for some reason and getting a kick out of you all telling him how dumb he is. Maybe he is some kind of weirdo of the "dance puppets dance" variety. We would be all better off just ignoring him. Please stop feeding the troll.

Also smackdown is wrong no matter how he interprets the question. In his interpretation the airplane would end up moving backwards, infinitely, and just take off backwards. Who cares if it crashes a few seconds later or resembles a baA. d crash at a Nascar event? It takes off regardless. Sorry to let you down smacky, but youre wrong no matter what.

The plane takes off.

A. THe control systems defines that the airplane can't move forward or backwards.
B How the control system accomplishes that isn't my problem
C The plane doesn't move see A.

Item B is your problem if you are specifying something that violates the laws of physics.

No it is not. I didn't make the question. It is an understated question with two reasonable ways to read it.
And what law of physics is being violated.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
MMmmm.... I haven't had a good steak for a while now; been living on pasta for the marathon.

My dad just got an elk and a black bear out in Idaho; I did have some of the elk already, but would love some more. Hey, anyone know of any good bear recipes? I hear it needs a lot of cooking to be any good...

I've been trying to find some elk for a while, but I've been stymied by fate, it seems. I suspect it's similar to venison... is it?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: smack Down

Again you FBD is only valid if you read the problem as the treadmill tracks the ground speed of the plane.

There is no other coherent interpretation of the problem.

If it tracks the speed of the plane relitive to the treadmill surface

Depending on what you mean, this is either a meaningless tautology, or it is an impossibility.

If you mean that the treadmill surface moves at a rate relative to the plane that is equal to the plane's rate relative to the treadmill surface, you have stated a tautology. At any speed this must be true, so it means nothing.

If you mean that the treadmill surface moves at a rate relative to the ground that is equal to the plane's rate relative to the treadmill surface, you have stated an impossibility. In order for the treadmill surface to register a change in motion from zero velocity to a state of motion, the plane must accelerate. When the plane accelerates relative to the treadmill surface, then the treadmill surface accelerates relative to the ground. The acceleration of the treadmill surface relative to the ground necessarily increases the acceleration of the plane relative to the treadmill surface, however. Therefore there is no way that the two relative rates (plane to treadmill and treadmill to ground) can be simultaneously equal, so that interpretation is incoherent.

You, sir, have failed utterly.

You failed at math
They are equal if and only if the ground speed of the plane is zero. Therefor the plane can't take off.

You're not responding to the objection. Obviously they must all begin at zero, but the point is that as soon as the plane begins to thrust, the impossibility of your proposal is realized.

The fact that you would attempt to rebut the objection with something so trivial reveals that you are not interested in actually debating the topic, but instead are merely trolling -- something I suspected already.

Enjoy your sad, sad life.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: smack Down

Again you FBD is only valid if you read the problem as the treadmill tracks the ground speed of the plane.

There is no other coherent interpretation of the problem.

If it tracks the speed of the plane relitive to the treadmill surface

Depending on what you mean, this is either a meaningless tautology, or it is an impossibility.

If you mean that the treadmill surface moves at a rate relative to the plane that is equal to the plane's rate relative to the treadmill surface, you have stated a tautology. At any speed this must be true, so it means nothing.

If you mean that the treadmill surface moves at a rate relative to the ground that is equal to the plane's rate relative to the treadmill surface, you have stated an impossibility. In order for the treadmill surface to register a change in motion from zero velocity to a state of motion, the plane must accelerate. When the plane accelerates relative to the treadmill surface, then the treadmill surface accelerates relative to the ground. The acceleration of the treadmill surface relative to the ground necessarily increases the acceleration of the plane relative to the treadmill surface, however. Therefore there is no way that the two relative rates (plane to treadmill and treadmill to ground) can be simultaneously equal, so that interpretation is incoherent.

You, sir, have failed utterly.

You failed at math
They are equal if and only if the ground speed of the plane is zero. Therefor the plane can't take off.

You're not responding to the objection. Obviously they must all begin at zero, but the point is that as soon as the plane begins to thrust, the impossibility of your proposal is realized.

The fact that you would attempt to rebut the objection with something so trivial reveals that you are not interested in actually debating the topic, but instead are merely trolling -- something I suspected already.

Enjoy your sad, sad life.

Wow your sad.
By definition of the control system we have
Speed of treadmill relitive to ground = speed of air plane relitive to the treadmill
speed of air plane relitive to the treadmill = speed of treadmill relitive to ground +ground speed of airplane.

Speed of treadmill relitive to ground = speed of treadmill relitive to ground +ground speed of airplane.
So Speed of treadmill relitive to ground = speed of treadmill relitive to ground if and only if ground speed of airplane = 0.

Or should I say you have utterly failed and are a said POS.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: gsellis
Based on all 6 pages, it is then possible to stand that treadmill on end and prevent the airplane from smacking into the ground just by speeding up the treadmill. Cool trick. Anybody want to buy a bridge? A bit over 100years old in the NYC area...

According to smackdown, yes it would be quite possible to stand the treadmill vertical then simply increase the spead of the treadmill. It would allow the plane to stand perfectly still and defy gravity in such the same way it would stand still and defy the thrust of it's engines when horizontal.

SMACKDOWN.

Please explain this.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: gsellis
Based on all 6 pages, it is then possible to stand that treadmill on end and prevent the airplane from smacking into the ground just by speeding up the treadmill. Cool trick. Anybody want to buy a bridge? A bit over 100years old in the NYC area...

According to smackdown, yes it would be quite possible to stand the treadmill vertical then simply increase the spead of the treadmill. It would allow the plane to stand perfectly still and defy gravity in such the same way it would stand still and defy the thrust of it's engines when horizontal.

SMACKDOWN.

Please explain this.

What is to explain your right it would do that if the treadmill tracks the speed of the plane relitive to the treadmill surface. Assuming of courses the plane never loses contact with the treadmill. The torque of the wheels will simple increase until the force matches that of gravity.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: gsellis
Based on all 6 pages, it is then possible to stand that treadmill on end and prevent the airplane from smacking into the ground just by speeding up the treadmill. Cool trick. Anybody want to buy a bridge? A bit over 100years old in the NYC area...

According to smackdown, yes it would be quite possible to stand the treadmill vertical then simply increase the spead of the treadmill. It would allow the plane to stand perfectly still and defy gravity in such the same way it would stand still and defy the thrust of it's engines when horizontal.

SMACKDOWN.

Please explain this.

What is to explain your right it would do that if the treadmill tracks the speed of the plane relitive to the treadmill surface. Assuming of courses the plane never loses contact with the treadmill. The torque of the wheels will simple increase until the force matches that of gravity.

So you are REALLY saying that the plane would hover in the air and not be pulled downward by gravity just because it's wheels are spinning?



AKA treadmill surface accelerates upward at 32ft/sec^2 and plane will stop acclerating downward at 32ft/sec^2 thereby defying gravity? With free spinning wheels??


Do you work for as an animator for Warner Bros by chance?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: gsellis
Based on all 6 pages, it is then possible to stand that treadmill on end and prevent the airplane from smacking into the ground just by speeding up the treadmill. Cool trick. Anybody want to buy a bridge? A bit over 100years old in the NYC area...

According to smackdown, yes it would be quite possible to stand the treadmill vertical then simply increase the spead of the treadmill. It would allow the plane to stand perfectly still and defy gravity in such the same way it would stand still and defy the thrust of it's engines when horizontal.

SMACKDOWN.

Please explain this.

What is to explain your right it would do that if the treadmill tracks the speed of the plane relitive to the treadmill surface. Assuming of courses the plane never loses contact with the treadmill. The torque of the wheels will simple increase until the force matches that of gravity.

So you are REALLY saying that the plane would hover in the air and not be pulled downward by gravity just because it's wheels are spinning?



AKA treadmill surface accelerates upward at 32ft/sec^2 and plane will stop acclerating downward at 32ft/sec^2 thereby defying gravity? With free spinning wheels??


Do you work for as an animator for Warner Bros by chance?

The treadmill's accleration would be alot greater then the accleration due to gravity. Because the treadmill is only acting thru torque on a very small part of the airplane.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: gsellis
Based on all 6 pages, it is then possible to stand that treadmill on end and prevent the airplane from smacking into the ground just by speeding up the treadmill. Cool trick. Anybody want to buy a bridge? A bit over 100years old in the NYC area...

According to smackdown, yes it would be quite possible to stand the treadmill vertical then simply increase the spead of the treadmill. It would allow the plane to stand perfectly still and defy gravity in such the same way it would stand still and defy the thrust of it's engines when horizontal.

SMACKDOWN.

Please explain this.

What is to explain your right it would do that if the treadmill tracks the speed of the plane relitive to the treadmill surface. Assuming of courses the plane never loses contact with the treadmill. The torque of the wheels will simple increase until the force matches that of gravity.

So you are REALLY saying that the plane would hover in the air and not be pulled downward by gravity just because it's wheels are spinning?



AKA treadmill surface accelerates upward at 32ft/sec^2 and plane will stop acclerating downward at 32ft/sec^2 thereby defying gravity? With free spinning wheels??


Do you work for as an animator for Warner Bros by chance?

The treadmill's accleration would be alot greater then the accleration due to gravity. Because the treadmill is only acting thru torque on a very small part of the airplane.

Explain.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: gsellis
Based on all 6 pages, it is then possible to stand that treadmill on end and prevent the airplane from smacking into the ground just by speeding up the treadmill. Cool trick. Anybody want to buy a bridge? A bit over 100years old in the NYC area...

According to smackdown, yes it would be quite possible to stand the treadmill vertical then simply increase the spead of the treadmill. It would allow the plane to stand perfectly still and defy gravity in such the same way it would stand still and defy the thrust of it's engines when horizontal.

SMACKDOWN.

Please explain this.

What is to explain your right it would do that if the treadmill tracks the speed of the plane relitive to the treadmill surface. Assuming of courses the plane never loses contact with the treadmill. The torque of the wheels will simple increase until the force matches that of gravity.

So you are REALLY saying that the plane would hover in the air and not be pulled downward by gravity just because it's wheels are spinning?



AKA treadmill surface accelerates upward at 32ft/sec^2 and plane will stop acclerating downward at 32ft/sec^2 thereby defying gravity? With free spinning wheels??


Do you work for as an animator for Warner Bros by chance?

The treadmill's accleration would be alot greater then the accleration due to gravity. Because the treadmill is only acting thru torque on a very small part of the airplane.

Explain.

It doesnt matter, his explanation is wrong. by his interpretation the torque would increase to infinity and the plane would be thrown backwards at infinity miles an hour in 0 seconds. its pure bullsh!t that the torque would match anything. the treadmill will never stop accelerating because it can never match the speed of the airplane relative to its own surface.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: gsellis
Based on all 6 pages, it is then possible to stand that treadmill on end and prevent the airplane from smacking into the ground just by speeding up the treadmill. Cool trick. Anybody want to buy a bridge? A bit over 100years old in the NYC area...

According to smackdown, yes it would be quite possible to stand the treadmill vertical then simply increase the spead of the treadmill. It would allow the plane to stand perfectly still and defy gravity in such the same way it would stand still and defy the thrust of it's engines when horizontal.

SMACKDOWN.

Please explain this.

What is to explain your right it would do that if the treadmill tracks the speed of the plane relitive to the treadmill surface. Assuming of courses the plane never loses contact with the treadmill. The torque of the wheels will simple increase until the force matches that of gravity.

So you are REALLY saying that the plane would hover in the air and not be pulled downward by gravity just because it's wheels are spinning?



AKA treadmill surface accelerates upward at 32ft/sec^2 and plane will stop acclerating downward at 32ft/sec^2 thereby defying gravity? With free spinning wheels??


Do you work for as an animator for Warner Bros by chance?

The treadmill's accleration would be alot greater then the accleration due to gravity. Because the treadmill is only acting thru torque on a very small part of the airplane.

Explain.

It doesnt matter, his explanation is wrong. by his interpretation the torque would increase to infinity and the plane would be thrown backwards at infinity miles an hour in 0 seconds. its pure bullsh!t that the torque would match anything. the treadmill will never stop accelerating because it can never match the speed of the airplane relative to its own surface.

No the control system would balance the torque from the wheels and the force from the plane so that it doesn't move.

I think I'm getting close to proving all you fools wrong. So you agree that the treadmill can apply a force to the wheels? Ok now just added the control sustem which will balance the force from the treadmill with the force from the engine and the plane will not move.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: smack Down
No the control system would balance the torque from the wheels and the force from the plane so that it doesn't move.

I think I'm getting close to proving all you fools wrong. So you agree that the treadmill can apply a force to the wheels? Ok now just added the control sustem which will balance the force from the treadmill with the force from the engine and the plane will not move.

Not a chance in hell on that. You have no grasp of physics and reality, and no tools to recognize your gap. You think linear force is always linear and cannot recognize that the free wheeling just converts that motion to angular motion on the wheel with no ability to ever overcome the opposite force not attached to the treadmill. You are arguing that a car that straddles a treadmill with a middle freewheel on the treadmill will not be able to drive off because of the force threadmill exerts on the middle wheel will stop it. You refuse to belief you are wrong even though it is all there in many posts.