Mythbusters to take on "the plane and the treadmill" conundrum?

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Safeway

Originally posted by: sao123
http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/191034-1.html
Free registration required

I am very interested in reading the article, but very opposed to signing up to view one thread. Mind sending it to me via PM?

how about a word document?
http://www.datafilehost.com/download.php?file=c6521278

pwned

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: Tizyler

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: Tizyler
Imagine a treadmill.
Imagine a man in rollerblades standing on the treadmill.
Imagine another man, at the destination end, holding a rope which is tied to the man on the rollerblades.

If you turn the treadmill on, the man will stay stationary, given that the man on the end is holding the rope.

If the man on the end walks away, pulling the rope, the man on the rollerblades will be pulled--easily.

The man on the rollerblades is the jet. The man pulling the rope is the thrust from the engines.

what does pulling on a rope have to do with anything? the airplane isnt being pulled by a rope. u just added that for your benefit. LOL. stop changing things and stick with the program. try again

Theoretically, being pulled on a rope is no different than being pushed by a jet engine.

If it is too troubling for you to understand, then imagine the man on rollerblades strapped to a jet engine.

OMG, i cant believe you kids. obviously, you can pull someone or something with a rope. but i dont think that is what we are debating about.

It is. And this is a very simple and clear analogy. Clearly, you're not tall enough to ride the internets.

 

[MasonLuke]

Originally posted by: Garth
I think it is clear that MasonLuke has misunderstood the stipulations of the problem. He seems to begin with the assumption that the treadmill will move in the opposite direction with whatever speed is necessary to make the plane stand still.

This is not the case, however. The treadmill moves at the same speed as the plane but in the reverse direction. Consequently, the wheels will need to rotate twice as fast to cover the distance the plane would ordinarily travel plus the "pseudo-distance" added by the reverse motion of the treadmmill, which will be precisely equal to the distance that the plane would cover in the first place.

In order for the treadmill to force the plane to remain motionless, it would have to move at speeds MUCH greater than the forward speed of the plane. For that matter, if the plane was motionless, how could one conclude that the treadmill was moving at all? The precondition is that the treadmill moves as fast as the plane. If you assume the belt moves, you've already conceded that the plane moves. If you're arguing that the plane stands still, then it can't be due to the movement of the belt. When the plane's speed is zero, so should be the belt's.

EDIT: MasonLuke, you're not also an anti-evolutionist, by chance, are you?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Garth
I think it is clear that MasonLuke has misunderstood the stipulations of the problem. He seems to begin with the assumption that the treadmill will move in the opposite direction with whatever speed is necessary to make the plane stand still.

This is not the case, however. The treadmill moves at the same speed as the plane but in the reverse direction. Consequently, the wheels will need to rotate twice as fast to cover the distance the plane would ordinarily travel plus the "pseudo-distance" added by the reverse motion of the treadmmill, which will be precisely equal to the distance that the plane would cover in the first place.

In order for the treadmill to force the plane to remain motionless, it would have to move at speeds MUCH greater than the forward speed of the plane. For that matter, if the plane was motionless, how could one conclude that the treadmill was moving at all? The precondition is that the treadmill moves as fast as the plane. If you assume the belt moves, you've already conceded that the plane moves. If you're arguing that the plane stands still, then it can't be due to the movement of the belt. When the plane's speed is zero, so should be the belt's.

EDIT: MasonLuke, you're not also an anti-evolutionist, by chance, are you?

Sure he is, whatever provides him troll fodder. After attempting to understand his grammar and syntax, he sounds just like dirtboy. They share the same ability to debate, at least.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: Tizyler

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: Tizyler

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: Tizyler
Imagine a treadmill.
Imagine a man in rollerblades standing on the treadmill.
Imagine another man, at the destination end, holding a rope which is tied to the man on the rollerblades.

If you turn the treadmill on, the man will stay stationary, given that the man on the end is holding the rope.

If the man on the end walks away, pulling the rope, the man on the rollerblades will be pulled--easily.

The man on the rollerblades is the jet. The man pulling the rope is the thrust from the engines.

what does pulling on a rope have to do with anything? the airplane isnt being pulled by a rope. u just added that for your benefit. LOL. stop changing things and stick with the program. try again

Theoretically, being pulled on a rope is no different than being pushed by a jet engine.

If it is too troubling for you to understand, then imagine the man on rollerblades strapped to a jet engine.

OMG, i cant believe you kids. obviously, you can pull someone or something with a rope. but i dont think that is what we are debating about.

I'll say it again.
If it is too troubling for you to understand, then imagine the man on rollerblades strapped to a jet engine.

and? he will not move forward unless u have a guy pulling him with a rope. anything else? i really dont understand why kids what to change the assumptions and add a rope.

if a guy on roller blades strapped to a jet engine was on the treadmill that can counter the rollerbladeswheels in the exact opposite direction, he willnot move forward.

Link?

 

[James Bond]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
if a guy on roller blades strapped to a jet engine was on the treadmill that can counter the rollerbladeswheels in the exact opposite direction, he willnot move forward.

...

If you truly believe that then I feel sorry for you.

 

[MasonLuke]

Kids, for extra credit, think about everything i wrote and we'll talk about again in a couple of weeks.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: Garth
I think it is clear that MasonLuke has misunderstood the stipulations of the problem. He seems to begin with the assumption that the treadmill will move in the opposite direction with whatever speed is necessary to make the plane stand still.

This is not the case, however. The treadmill moves at the same speed as the plane but in the reverse direction. Consequently, the wheels will need to rotate twice as fast to cover the distance the plane would ordinarily travel plus the "pseudo-distance" added by the reverse motion of the treadmmill, which will be precisely equal to the distance that the plane would cover in the first place.

In order for the treadmill to force the plane to remain motionless, it would have to move at speeds MUCH greater than the forward speed of the plane. For that matter, if the plane was motionless, how could one conclude that the treadmill was moving at all? The precondition is that the treadmill moves as fast as the plane. If you assume the belt moves, you've already conceded that the plane moves. If you're arguing that the plane stands still, then it can't be due to the movement of the belt. When the plane's speed is zero, so should be the belt's.

EDIT: MasonLuke, you're not also an anti-evolutionist, by chance, are you?

Did you have anything to say?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
It takes a man to admit he is wrong, thats why i call you kids. anyways, i proved my point that the plane will not fly.

i work in the epicenter of the aerospace industry. Hughes, Raytheon, L3, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, ect are right here. We have engineers with Phds, and i'm embarrass to say, but i did consult with several of them right now and basically they told me to stop playing with these kids. BUT ALL OF THEM SAID THE PLANE CANNOT FLY!

it ends here.

Thank you, and when halloween rolls by, come trick or treatn by my house :beer:

Okay, now you're just clearly a liar and a troll.

what i lie about? Is that the only statement you can make? i cant prove him wrong so i'll call him a liar and a troll. LOL, cute little kid.

OK, then provide a link/evidence of where you work. Wouldn't that clear things up?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
its very hard to test because of the technology behind the treadmill. Im sure it can be done on a very smaller scale, but it will cost you big bucks.

Link?

 

[Kev]

MasonLuke:

IF THE TREADMILL WAS GOING A MILLION TRILLION BAJILLION GAGILLION MILES PER NANOSECOND IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION THE PLANE WOULD STILL FVCKING TAKE OFF. PLEASE STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: MasonLuke


Most of you kids are not familiar with a plane, so lets relate this to a car. During a smog check your drive wheels are on a roller. Mind you that this is a primitive device and nothing like the treadmill. The treadmill can counter the exact speed of the wheel. When you press the gas, wheels turn, but the car is not in motion. Now imagine 2 rollers, one for the front wheel and one for the back, or just one long one like our treadmill.

Now, instead of the piston engine connected to the wheels, you have one of the jet powered cars. Thrust comes from the jet and is not powering the wheels as in the case of our airplane. More power you turn on the faster the rollers rotate. The car is stationary. If the car is stationary, the plane will be to. And without forward movement, no lift on wings, thus no flight.

You have just proven hypothesis 1... you are a complete and total moron.

Thank you, thats all i needed to prove. Thanks for supporting me. I've proven hypotheis 1, and if i have proven that, then the plane cant fly. it logical.

Now you are STUPID :Q

link?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
Kids, for extra credit, think about everything i wrote and we'll talk about again in a couple of weeks.

It's on you to provide evidence for your silly claims. I ask again: Link?

 

[Kev]

MasonLuke, this explains everything in perfect detail, even you can understand it.http://phys.mit.edu/drater?943859948

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
Kids, for extra credit, think about everything i wrote and we'll talk about again in a couple of weeks.

Looks like he is preparing for a two week ban. Hmm.

 

[randay]

Read from the bottom of page 30 and realise that since the beginning of febuary this fvckhead has made several attempts over 3 weeks to try to necro this thread so that he could troll it. he finally succeeded and you have all been had by this retard.

Now please stop feeding this troll. thanks.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: randay
Read from the bottom of page 30 and realise that since the beginning of febuary this fvckhead has made several attempts over 3 weeks to try to necro this thread so that he could troll it. he finally succeeded and you have all been had by this retard.

Now please stop feeding this troll. thanks.

So, what you are saying is that arguing on the internet is like winning a race in the Special Olympics.... right

 

[kthroyer]

I think that this thread can be an excellent tool for determining what kind of person you are interacting with over the internet. A list can be compiled of all the ATOT members that, after reading this thread, still believe the plane will not fly. This list will be used in a similar way to registered sex offender lists, and anyone on said list can be treated in the appropriate manner. (ignored or ridiculed)

 

[tikwanleap]

The confusion is because the problem statement is unclear.

Some people, like MasonLuke, are basing their conclusion on the fact that one version of the problem states:

"The speed of the treadmill matches the speed of the wheels in the opposite direction."

If this statement is true, then the plane is not moving forward.

If the plane is moving forward then the speed of the wheels must be greater than the speed of the treadmill.


The problem should really say something like:

"The speed of the treadmill matches the speed of the plane relative to the ground in the opposite direction"

So if the plane moves forward at X mph, the treadmill would move in the opposite direction at X mph, and the wheels would move at 2X mph.

The plane will take off in this case since the wheels are free to move at 2X mph and still allow the plane to move forward at X mph.

In other words, the treadmill running against free moving (ideally frictionless) wheels have little to no effect on the forward motion of the plane.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: tikwanleap
The confusion is because the problem statement is unclear.

Some people, like MasonLuke, are basing their conclusion on the fact that one version of the problem states:

"The speed of the treadmill matches the speed of the wheels in the opposite direction."

If this statement is true, then the plane is not moving forward.

If the plane is moving forward then the speed of the wheels must be greater than the speed of the treadmill.


The problem should really say something like:

"The speed of the treadmill matches the speed of the plane relative to the ground in the opposite direction"

So if the plane moves forward at X mph, the treadmill would move in the opposite direction at X mph, and the wheels would move at 2X mph.

The plane will take off in this case since the wheels are free to move at 2X mph and still allow the plane to move forward at X mph.

In other words, the treadmill running against free moving (ideally frictionless) wheels have little to no effect on the forward motion of the plane.

The highlighted part:
It is not that the plane is standing still, it is that this situation is impossible.
a rigid body cannot both be in motion, and not in motion at the same time.

 

[tikwanleap]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: tikwanleap
The confusion is because the problem statement is unclear.

Some people, like MasonLuke, are basing their conclusion on the fact that one version of the problem states:

"The speed of the treadmill matches the speed of the wheels in the opposite direction."

If this statement is true, then the plane is not moving forward.

If the plane is moving forward then the speed of the wheels must be greater than the speed of the treadmill.


The problem should really say something like:

"The speed of the treadmill matches the speed of the plane relative to the ground in the opposite direction"

So if the plane moves forward at X mph, the treadmill would move in the opposite direction at X mph, and the wheels would move at 2X mph.

The plane will take off in this case since the wheels are free to move at 2X mph and still allow the plane to move forward at X mph.

In other words, the treadmill running against free moving (ideally frictionless) wheels have little to no effect on the forward motion of the plane.

The highlighted part:
It is not that the plane is standing still, it is that this situation is impossible.
a rigid body cannot both be in motion, and not in motion at the same time.

That's true. It is a paradox like someone else mentioned.

I was pointing this out to try to explain why some people might come to the false conclusion that the plane is not moving.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

This is teh stupidest myth EVER

 

[MasonLuke]

Kids, have you done your extra credit yet? I gave you kids enough time to think, so i'm assuming you figured out why you are wrong.

for simplicity, lets say you want the plane to move forward 100 yards(football field) the ONLY way the plane will move forward is by the wheels turning. Yes or NO. the answer is yes. there is no other way the plane can move foward. Now, when the wheels turn, the treadmill counters the wheels movement keeping the plane still.

i hope you kids asked your teachers and/or parents why the plane.

OP, please add a poll. i cant be the only one in here that is gifted.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: ducci
Alright, you sound smart. I am not disagreeing with you. I just have a question, and it's really all that bothers me about this scenario:

If the wheels are spinning, and the treadmill is going, all while the engines are pushing the plane forward - wouldn't this cause the wheels to "slide" on the surface of the treadmill?

For example, if I'm on rollerblades on a treadmill and I'm holding a rope attached to a pole in front of me, and I pull forward, the wheels would undoubtedly slide. How is that any different in this case?

I was under the impression the question declared that there was no sliding of the wheels, so I'm just wondering what the explanation for that would be. Thanks man.

:beer:

The wheels will not slide.... the wheels simply turn faster.
They do not have a theoretical maximal velocity cap.

Originally posted by: smack Down

Suppose we have an identical plane, on an identical conveyor-runway but the plane has no engines. I think at this point we have established the fact that the thrust comes from the engines and not the wheels. If you turn on the conveyor given the connection interfaces described above, the wheels WILL SPIN equal and opposite to the motion of the conveyor, this rotation is caused by a force applied to a location away from the center of mass of the object. In order to prevent translational motion, a rotating body requires a force couple. In this example the inertial mass of the plane is so many orders of magnitude above the effective x force acting on the plane, that secondary order effects such as air resistance will negate any already negligible movement. This completes the couple.

If I read this right you are saying the force for the wheels is so small it can be ignored. I'm not sure you are correct in ignoring such a force unless you can show it is bounded. If the force isn't bounded then it is infinite because the treadmill will make it so.

This number is bounded.
the maximal amount of force capable of being transferred through the rotational axel is equal to the frictional force of that same system.
Since the frictional equation is
F = u * N
u is the coefficient of friction = approximately .05 (for lubricated steel bearings)
N is the perpendicular force = mass of the plane * 9.8M/s^2
regardless of these values, this number is constant, and does not change with repesct to any velocity of the plane, treadmill, or other.

That is not a complete description of how the wheels interact with the plane. You are describing something more like skies then wheels. You failed to account for any of the effects of the wheel.

 

[slpaulson]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
Kids, have you done your extra credit yet? I gave you kids enough time to think, so i'm assuming you figured out why you are wrong.

for simplicity, lets say you want the plane to move forward 100 yards(football field) the ONLY way the plane will move forward is by the wheels turning. Yes or NO. the answer is yes. there is no other way the plane can move foward. Now, when the wheels turn, the treadmill counters the wheels movement keeping the plane still.

i hope you kids asked your teachers and/or parents why the plane.

OP, please add a poll. i cant be the only one in here that is gifted.

When you attempt to insult the intelligence of others, you really should put an effort towards using proper punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure.