Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage
There has been a huuuuuge thread on the Mythbusters forums about this for a very long time (pre AT, I believe).
Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage
There has been a huuuuuge thread on the Mythbusters forums about this for a very long time (pre AT, I believe).
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage
There has been a huuuuuge thread on the Mythbusters forums about this for a very long time (pre AT, I believe).
Yeah, that was actually the second link Google provided. :laugh:
The google news search didn't provide anything beyond articles saying that the creators of Mythbusters was coming out with two new shows.
I'm hoping it is true. It would probably end up being the highest-rated/most talked about episode of Mythbusters ever.
Episode 71: Pirate Special
Arggghhh, me hearties! Jamie and Adam plundered the seven seas in search of pirate parables and maritime myths. The result? This 2-hour spectacular episode! And, with four stories of hijinks on the high seas the action is thick and fast. Playing with more firearms, the guys try to figure out how deadly cannonballs really are versus the splinters sprayed from a mighty broadside blast. Kari, Grant and Tory on the port side decode the mysteries of the ol' pirate eye patch: why would a pirate wear a patch over a perfectly good eye? And if that isn't enough, the gang tops of the show with rum, knives and sails ... whaat? This one's for the books!
Premiere: Jan. 17, 2006
Episode 72: Underwater Car
If you're unfortunate enough to drive your vehicle into the drink, is it possible to escape or will a watery grave be your fate? Heading poolside, the guys get their feet wet by doing some intensive underwater training. Then the pressure is on as they seat themselves inside a submerged car and do their darndest to get out. Meanwhile Grant, Tory and Kari roll out the Seven Paper Fold myth. Is it possible to fold a piece of paper in half more than seven times? Taking this myth to the outer limits, our crew sets up at a location that has plenty of space ? NASA. Here, in the biggest build they have ever attempted, their mission is to put together a piece of paper that's the size of a football field.
Premiere: Jan. 24, 2006
Originally posted by: DaShen
How about Snakes on a Plane Myth?
Put Samuel L Jackson on a Plane full of poisonous snakes and you will survive. Now that would be a great Mythbuster.
Originally posted by: xchangx
I think it depends on how the air is being moved and where. On RC Prop planes, you are pushing air over the wings, airliners have the engines under the wing.
I think you need to have enough air running over the wings to create the lift
Didn't they do this on Top Gear?Episode 72: Underwater Car
If you're unfortunate enough to drive your vehicle into the drink, is it possible to escape or will a watery grave be your fate? Heading poolside, the guys get their feet wet by doing some intensive underwater training. Then the pressure is on as they seat themselves inside a submerged car and do their darndest to get out. Meanwhile Grant, Tory and Kari roll out the Seven Paper Fold myth. Is it possible to fold a piece of paper in half more than seven times? Taking this myth to the outer limits, our crew sets up at a location that has plenty of space ? NASA. Here, in the biggest build they have ever attempted, their mission is to put together a piece of paper that's the size of a football field.
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
Sounds good in theory, but I still doubt that they'll be able to get the plane to take off. The whole idea is just too impractical to work... If it did, airports would have short treadmill runways to save space.
The treadmill runway would ony work if the plane put it's brakes on and it would work like a carrier catapult.Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
Sounds good in theory, but I still doubt that they'll be able to get the plane to take off. The whole idea is just too impractical to work... If it did, airports would have short treadmill runways to save space.
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
Sounds good in theory, but I still doubt that they'll be able to get the plane to take off. The whole idea is just too impractical to work... If it did, airports would have short treadmill runways to save space.
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
Sounds good in theory, but I still doubt that they'll be able to get the plane to take off. The whole idea is just too impractical to work... If it did, airports would have short treadmill runways to save space.
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: loic2003
You have a large treadmill/conveyor belt. It matches the speed of wheels, so if you put a car (or any vehicle that moves by physically turning it's wheels) and drove forward at 10mph, the mill would automatically move at 10mph in the opposite direction, so viewing the car from the side would show that the car doesn't actually move anywhere dispite it's wheels turning.Originally posted by: Phokus
can someone explain the conundrum plz?
Then you take an airplane, and put that on the conveyor. Some idiots couldn't figure that planes use thrust to move, so wheel speed is irrelevant (think planes with skids for landing on snow or water). As the thrust of the plane moved it forward, the conveyor would try to keep up, but would always be slower than the aircraft's wheels since the plane is moving forward. Theoretically, the conveyor speed would increase (exponentially?) until the aircraft took off.
It really highlighted some serious idiots who thought planes had powered wheels or that the speed of the wheels made a difference to the thrust of the aircraft (bearing resistance has been ignored in this example).
Sounds good in theory, but I still doubt that they'll be able to get the plane to take off. The whole idea is just too impractical to work... If it did, airports would have short treadmill runways to save space.
no they wouldnt. think of the cost of such a thing. it is far cheaper to have a longer runway so they can takeoff.