MythBusters

[CorCentral]

Originally posted by: eits
the answer is easy... i don't need to watch mythbusters.

the answer is NO... the plane will not take off. whether a plane will fly is not dependent on how fast the wheels on the plane are going... it depends on the amount of lift the plane has under it's wings.

You're going to get raked over the coals.

To everyone that said the plane would take off.......... I told you there would be some Numbnut that no matter what happens and what has been proven, will always disagree on it.

Well, we actually need the idiots of the world. Without them, there would be no Improvement on their crappy designs by the people with a brain........ But in this case EITS, you're treading in a 20degree ocean and about to die..... FLAP YOUR ARMS!

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: coldmeat

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Look at the parameters of the myth they put forth.

Break it down mathematically what they wanted to prove:

(say plane is facing to the right, treadmill pulls to the left)

(1) The takeoff speed of the plane is "x".
(2) The treadmill is traveling at the speed of "x" to the left.
(3) Get the plane to travel at the speed of "x" to the right relative to the speed of the treadmill, in other words, not moving relative to an observer.
(4) Does the plane take off?

<snip>

This is where all of the confusion comes from. People have a different understanding of what the myth is.

Right, considering the FIRST part of what he wrote isn't even realistically possible given the conditions of the problem.

The first part is realistically possible, as long as the plane's engine is not running at full power. Have the engine run at 1/100th full power if that's what it takes to achieve the parameters of the myth, creating such small force that *will* equal the drag from the conveyor belt.

Engine speed is not a part of the equation.

Hell, if the conveyor belt has no influence at all on the plane, as many here believe, then to recreate the parameters, the engine would remain shut off and the plane stays stationary relative to an observer (plane would be takeoff speed relative to the belt), precisely recreating the conditions of the problem.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: CorCentral

Originally posted by: eits
the answer is easy... i don't need to watch mythbusters.

the answer is NO... the plane will not take off. whether a plane will fly is not dependent on how fast the wheels on the plane are going... it depends on the amount of lift the plane has under it's wings.

You're going to get raked over the coals.

To everyone that said the plane would take off.......... I told you there would be some Numbnut that no matter what happens and what has been proven, will always disagree on it.

Well, we actually need the idiots of the world. Without them, there would be no Improvement on their crappy designs by the people with a brain........ But in this case EITS, you're treading in a 20degree ocean and about to die..... FLAP YOUR ARMS!

??

excuse me? don't call me a numbnut you snatchfaced bitch... you're the idiot who thinks a stationary plane will fly.

you honestly think that a plane on a motherfucking treadmill will fly? if the plane is not displacing any distance, or if there's no wind under the wings, it cannot fly.

you might as well go to a flight school and call them numbnuts whenever they talk about lift and stalling. better yet, spend a bunch of your money and create an airplane that has an engine that only powers the wheels... that way, no pilot will ever stall... all they need to do is step on the gas.

:roll:

learn physics, dude.

http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/lifteq.html

thinking that you'll fly when you're in a plane on a treadmill is like saying that you ran so fast you could feel the wind against your face when you're running on a treadmill.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: CorCentral

Originally posted by: eits
the answer is easy... i don't need to watch mythbusters.

the answer is NO... the plane will not take off. whether a plane will fly is not dependent on how fast the wheels on the plane are going... it depends on the amount of lift the plane has under it's wings.

You're going to get raked over the coals.

To everyone that said the plane would take off.......... I told you there would be some Numbnut that no matter what happens and what has been proven, will always disagree on it.

Well, we actually need the idiots of the world. Without them, there would be no Improvement on their crappy designs by the people with a brain........ But in this case EITS, you're treading in a 20degree ocean and about to die..... FLAP YOUR ARMS!

The question is not whether a plane can take off from a treadmill.

The question is whether a plane can take off from a treadmill while confined to a specific speed. More specifically, zero mph to an observer.

You can't just ignore the second half of the question. When the plane on MythBusters traveled to the right of the observer, it broke the parameters of the question.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: CorCentral

Originally posted by: eits
the answer is easy... i don't need to watch mythbusters.

the answer is NO... the plane will not take off. whether a plane will fly is not dependent on how fast the wheels on the plane are going... it depends on the amount of lift the plane has under it's wings.

You're going to get raked over the coals.

To everyone that said the plane would take off.......... I told you there would be some Numbnut that no matter what happens and what has been proven, will always disagree on it.

Well, we actually need the idiots of the world. Without them, there would be no Improvement on their crappy designs by the people with a brain........ But in this case EITS, you're treading in a 20degree ocean and about to die..... FLAP YOUR ARMS!

The question is not whether a plane can take off from a treadmill.

The question is whether a plane can take off from a treadmill while confined to a specific speed. More specifically, zero mph to an observer.

You can't just ignore the second half of the question. When the plane on MythBusters traveled to the right of the observer, it broke the parameters of the question.

i just watched the mythbusters clip "busting" the myth... what a fucking load of bullshit. the plane was definitely displacing distance, which completely goes against the myth. the myth HAS to be that the plane must be displacing zero distance at whatever speed (plane on a treadmill)... otherwise, it wouldn't be a myth. it'd be a no-brainer, given the fact that any plane can take off if it travels enough of a distance at a certain velocity to give it lift.

if you shut the engine off completely, the plane would just go backward on the treadmill. the reason why you need the engines is to create thrust forward to keep up with the treadmill going backward so that the plane stays stationary on the treadmill. to the observer, the plane would be going no where. if the plane is going no where, then the plane cannot get lift to give it flight... all it would need to do is go at a faster speed forwards than the treadmill is going backwards... the end. not a myth.

why the hell would they test aerodynamics in a wind tunnel?

do you think formula 1 race car spoilers keep the car pressed against the asphalt just because of how fast the wheels are going and not because of how much air is going over it?

 

[maxster]

What exactly are the original parameters of this Plane on a Treadmill problem?


If the plane is stationary with respect to the air around it, plane does not take off.

If the plane moves at a certain velocity (take off velocity) with respect to the air around it, it takes off.

 

[maxster]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: CorCentral

Originally posted by: eits
the answer is easy... i don't need to watch mythbusters.

the answer is NO... the plane will not take off. whether a plane will fly is not dependent on how fast the wheels on the plane are going... it depends on the amount of lift the plane has under it's wings.

You're going to get raked over the coals.

To everyone that said the plane would take off.......... I told you there would be some Numbnut that no matter what happens and what has been proven, will always disagree on it.

Well, we actually need the idiots of the world. Without them, there would be no Improvement on their crappy designs by the people with a brain........ But in this case EITS, you're treading in a 20degree ocean and about to die..... FLAP YOUR ARMS!

The question is not whether a plane can take off from a treadmill.

The question is whether a plane can take off from a treadmill while confined to a specific speed. More specifically, zero mph to an observer.

You can't just ignore the second half of the question. When the plane on MythBusters traveled to the right of the observer, it broke the parameters of the question.

i just watched the mythbusters clip "busting" the myth... what a fucking load of bullshit. the plane was definitely displacing distance, which completely goes against the myth. the myth HAS to be that the plane must be displacing zero distance at whatever speed (plane on a treadmill)... otherwise, it wouldn't be a myth. it'd be a no-brainer, given the fact that any plane can take off if it travels enough of a distance at a certain velocity to give it lift.

if you shut the engine off completely, the plane would just go backward on the treadmill. the reason why you need the engines is to create thrust forward to keep up with the treadmill going backward so that the plane stays stationary on the treadmill. to the observer, the plane would be going no where. if the plane is going no where, then the plane cannot get lift to give it flight... all it would need to do is go at a faster speed forwards than the treadmill is going backwards... the end. not a myth.

why the hell would they test aerodynamics in a wind tunnel?

do you think formula 1 race car spoilers keep the car pressed against the asphalt just because of how fast the wheels are going and not because of how much air is going over it?

If the plane doesn't displace any distance, then obviously it wouldn't take off. That's a no brainer.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: maxster

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: CorCentral

Originally posted by: eits
the answer is easy... i don't need to watch mythbusters.

the answer is NO... the plane will not take off. whether a plane will fly is not dependent on how fast the wheels on the plane are going... it depends on the amount of lift the plane has under it's wings.

You're going to get raked over the coals.

To everyone that said the plane would take off.......... I told you there would be some Numbnut that no matter what happens and what has been proven, will always disagree on it.

Well, we actually need the idiots of the world. Without them, there would be no Improvement on their crappy designs by the people with a brain........ But in this case EITS, you're treading in a 20degree ocean and about to die..... FLAP YOUR ARMS!

The question is not whether a plane can take off from a treadmill.

The question is whether a plane can take off from a treadmill while confined to a specific speed. More specifically, zero mph to an observer.

You can't just ignore the second half of the question. When the plane on MythBusters traveled to the right of the observer, it broke the parameters of the question.

i just watched the mythbusters clip "busting" the myth... what a fucking load of bullshit. the plane was definitely displacing distance, which completely goes against the myth. the myth HAS to be that the plane must be displacing zero distance at whatever speed (plane on a treadmill)... otherwise, it wouldn't be a myth. it'd be a no-brainer, given the fact that any plane can take off if it travels enough of a distance at a certain velocity to give it lift.

if you shut the engine off completely, the plane would just go backward on the treadmill. the reason why you need the engines is to create thrust forward to keep up with the treadmill going backward so that the plane stays stationary on the treadmill. to the observer, the plane would be going no where. if the plane is going no where, then the plane cannot get lift to give it flight... all it would need to do is go at a faster speed forwards than the treadmill is going backwards... the end. not a myth.

why the hell would they test aerodynamics in a wind tunnel?

do you think formula 1 race car spoilers keep the car pressed against the asphalt just because of how fast the wheels are going and not because of how much air is going over it?

If the plane doesn't displace any distance, then obviously it wouldn't take off. That's a no brainer.

apparently not... corcentral doesn't seem to get that.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: eits
do you think formula 1 race car spoilers keep the car pressed against the asphalt just because of how fast the wheels are going and not because of how much air is going over it?

I'd love to see the MythBusters take on this! Obtain an F1 race car, put it on a Dyno, and test how much downforce the spoiler generates! :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Banzai042]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: maxster


If the plane doesn't displace any distance, then obviously it wouldn't take off. That's a no brainer.

apparently not... corcentral doesn't seem to get that.

Yes, and the entire point of this myth is that there is literally no way at all in the universe that a treadmill can keep the plane stationary when the plane is trying to take off (short of having the treadmill spin at several thousand MPH, which is not at all what the myth says). This means that if the plane is trying to take off we'll see exactly the result we saw on mythbusters tonight, case closed. If you disagree with this then I want to see mathematical proof that a treadmill can exert enough force that a plane attempting to take off will be held stationary while fitting the original constraints of the myth.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Banzai042
Yes, and the entire point of this myth is that there is literally no way at all in the universe that a treadmill can keep the plane stationary when the plane is trying to take off (short of having the treadmill spin at several thousand MPH, which is not at all what the myth says).

Nope.

Go watch the MythBusters episode again.

Both the treadmill and plane are given very specific speed constraints that they must adhere to to satisfy the myth. When the plane took off on the show, it had exceeded the myth's speed constraint.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: eits
the answer is easy... i don't need to watch mythbusters.

the answer is NO... the plane will not take off. whether a plane will fly is not dependent on how fast the wheels on the plane are going... it depends on the amount of lift the plane has under it's wings.

Well the plane DID TAKE OFF so you do need to watch it.

Key words here are: Thread matches the speed of the airplane and NOT airplane matches speed of the threadmill as you see it.

 

[gsellis]

Treadmill? No, the original was a converyor belt. Treadmill probably got used by some moron that could not grasp the rest of it. This is busted and arguing about it makes you dumb (see a previous post).

When they did the shaving cream and failed, I thought they were going to do the builder's foam in a can from the freezer next. AB was cool, but now I wonder.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Banzai042

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: maxster


If the plane doesn't displace any distance, then obviously it wouldn't take off. That's a no brainer.

apparently not... corcentral doesn't seem to get that.

Yes, and the entire point of this myth is that there is literally no way at all in the universe that a treadmill can keep the plane stationary when the plane is trying to take off (short of having the treadmill spin at several thousand MPH, which is not at all what the myth says). This means that if the plane is trying to take off we'll see exactly the result we saw on mythbusters tonight, case closed. If you disagree with this then I want to see mathematical proof that a treadmill can exert enough force that a plane attempting to take off will be held stationary while fitting the original constraints of the myth.

dude, the myth is that the plane is going on a treadmill staying in place. if the frigging plane thrusts forward at the same speed as the treadmill, they are at equilibrium and the plane will have to overcome equilibrium to move forward in order to get lift. therefore, the myth is not busted. a stationary plane cannot create lift. the plane MUST go faster than the treadmill to get enough speed to create lift.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: eits
the answer is easy... i don't need to watch mythbusters.

the answer is NO... the plane will not take off. whether a plane will fly is not dependent on how fast the wheels on the plane are going... it depends on the amount of lift the plane has under it's wings.

Well the plane DID TAKE OFF so you do need to watch it.

Key words here are: Thread matches the speed of the airplane and NOT airplane matches speed of the threadmill as you see it.

the plane took off because it was going faster than the tarp it was running on (which is the lamest excuse for a valid experiment ever)... that's not part of the myth. the myth never says, "if a plane is on a treadmill and it keeps accelerating at a faster rate than the treadmill, will the plane take off?"... that's exactly what happened in the mythbusters clip i saw.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: eits
the answer is easy... i don't need to watch mythbusters.

the answer is NO... the plane will not take off. whether a plane will fly is not dependent on how fast the wheels on the plane are going... it depends on the amount of lift the plane has under it's wings.

Well the plane DID TAKE OFF so you do need to watch it.

Key words here are: Thread matches the speed of the airplane and NOT airplane matches speed of the threadmill as you see it.

the plane took off because it was going faster than the tarp it was running on (which is the lamest excuse for a valid experiment ever)... that's not part of the myth. the myth never says, "if a plane is on a treadmill and it keeps accelerating at a faster rate than the treadmill, will the plane take off?"... that's exactly what happened in the mythbusters clip i saw.

Are you guys TRYING to become the new Smackdowns?

They were going the exact same speed in opposite directions. I don't know how much clearer they can make it. The myth is that the treadmill(conveyor belt) matches the forward speed of the plane in the opposite direction. Because building a control system to do this would have been rather difficult they took the worst case scenario and pulled the conveyor at the take off speed of the plane. The plane accelerated and took off at just about its normal take off speed.

NO WHERE in the original problem does it say the plane remains stationary. The ONLY thing it says is that the speeds are matched in opposite directions. If you made the assumption that this would keep the plane in place you made a WRONG assumption.

The ONLY way to keep a plane from taking off is to make the thrust force = the force of inertia and friction. This would require the treadmill going much faster than the plane and therefore break the conditions given in the problem.

If you can't understand this from Jamie and Adam's "science" explanation, then you are simply being stubborn and refuse to accept the truth when its shoved in your face.

Think about this, a force which is not countered by an equal and opposite force will ALWAYS lead to constant acceleration.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Banzai042

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: maxster


If the plane doesn't displace any distance, then obviously it wouldn't take off. That's a no brainer.

apparently not... corcentral doesn't seem to get that.

Yes, and the entire point of this myth is that there is literally no way at all in the universe that a treadmill can keep the plane stationary when the plane is trying to take off (short of having the treadmill spin at several thousand MPH, which is not at all what the myth says). This means that if the plane is trying to take off we'll see exactly the result we saw on mythbusters tonight, case closed. If you disagree with this then I want to see mathematical proof that a treadmill can exert enough force that a plane attempting to take off will be held stationary while fitting the original constraints of the myth.

dude, the myth is that the plane is going on a treadmill staying in place. if the frigging plane thrusts forward at the same speed as the treadmill, they are at equilibrium and the plane will have to overcome equilibrium to move forward in order to get lift. therefore, the myth is not busted. a stationary plane cannot create lift. the plane MUST go faster than the treadmill to get enough speed to create lift.

If the plane exhibited no thrust (ie - the prop wasn't even moving) the plane would very nearly stay in place on moving treadmill. The wheels spinning on the treadmill exhibit almost no force on the plane that would lead to forward/backward motion.

The myth is poorly worded - I can agree with that. But to just hold the plane stationary on the treadmill to an observer standing on the ground would be a very low prop speed that wouldn't even allow the plane to take off if it was on the runway sans treadmill.

I however have always viewed this myth from the point of view of being on the ground looking at the treadmill and the plane. The treadmill has a velocity X and the the plane has a velocity -X. This will obviously allow the plane to take off if this scenario is possible. The point of contention is if this scenario is possible - ie - will the treadmill stop the plane from moving at -X. The answer to that question is no - it won't stop the plane from moving.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: eits
the answer is easy... i don't need to watch mythbusters.

the answer is NO... the plane will not take off. whether a plane will fly is not dependent on how fast the wheels on the plane are going... it depends on the amount of lift the plane has under it's wings.

Well the plane DID TAKE OFF so you do need to watch it.

Key words here are: Thread matches the speed of the airplane and NOT airplane matches speed of the threadmill as you see it.

the plane took off because it was going faster than the tarp it was running on (which is the lamest excuse for a valid experiment ever)... that's not part of the myth. the myth never says, "if a plane is on a treadmill and it keeps accelerating at a faster rate than the treadmill, will the plane take off?"... that's exactly what happened in the mythbusters clip i saw.

Are you guys TRYING to become the new Smackdowns?

They were going the exact same speed in opposite directions. I don't know how much clearer they can make it. The myth is that the treadmill(conveyor belt) matches the forward speed of the plane in the opposite direction. Because building a control system to do this would have been rather difficult they took the worst case scenario and pulled the conveyor at the take off speed of the plane. The plane accelerated and took off at just about its normal take off speed.

NO WHERE in the original problem does it say the plane remains stationary. The ONLY thing it says is that the speeds are matched in opposite directions. If you made the assumption that this would keep the plane in place you made a WRONG assumption.

The ONLY way to keep a plane from taking off is to make the thrust force = the force of inertia and friction. This would require the treadmill going much faster than the plane and therefore break the conditions given in the problem.

If you can't understand this from Jamie and Adam's "science" explanation, then you are simply being stubborn and refuse to accept the truth when its shoved in your face.

the new smackdowns? wtf is that?

no they weren't, dude. the plane obviously accelerates faster.

 

[eits]

i've arrived at the conclusion that this myth is a myth due to the fact that it's worded in a way that it could be taken in two different ways... either that or it's been spread around so much that people got the wrong idea of what the myth originally was.

i don't care to find out what the original myth is asking, so whatever. i'm going to bed.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: eits
the answer is easy... i don't need to watch mythbusters.

the answer is NO... the plane will not take off. whether a plane will fly is not dependent on how fast the wheels on the plane are going... it depends on the amount of lift the plane has under it's wings.

Well the plane DID TAKE OFF so you do need to watch it.

Key words here are: Thread matches the speed of the airplane and NOT airplane matches speed of the threadmill as you see it.

the plane took off because it was going faster than the tarp it was running on (which is the lamest excuse for a valid experiment ever)... that's not part of the myth. the myth never says, "if a plane is on a treadmill and it keeps accelerating at a faster rate than the treadmill, will the plane take off?"... that's exactly what happened in the mythbusters clip i saw.

Are you guys TRYING to become the new Smackdowns?

They were going the exact same speed in opposite directions. I don't know how much clearer they can make it. The myth is that the treadmill(conveyor belt) matches the forward speed of the plane in the opposite direction. Because building a control system to do this would have been rather difficult they took the worst case scenario and pulled the conveyor at the take off speed of the plane. The plane accelerated and took off at just about its normal take off speed.

NO WHERE in the original problem does it say the plane remains stationary. The ONLY thing it says is that the speeds are matched in opposite directions. If you made the assumption that this would keep the plane in place you made a WRONG assumption.

The ONLY way to keep a plane from taking off is to make the thrust force = the force of inertia and friction. This would require the treadmill going much faster than the plane and therefore break the conditions given in the problem.

If you can't understand this from Jamie and Adam's "science" explanation, then you are simply being stubborn and refuse to accept the truth when its shoved in your face.

the new smackdowns? wtf is that?

no they weren't, dude. the plane obviously accelerates faster.

How are you measuing the speed of this plane? Your wording is vague.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: eits
the answer is easy... i don't need to watch mythbusters.

the answer is NO... the plane will not take off. whether a plane will fly is not dependent on how fast the wheels on the plane are going... it depends on the amount of lift the plane has under it's wings.

Well the plane DID TAKE OFF so you do need to watch it.

Key words here are: Thread matches the speed of the airplane and NOT airplane matches speed of the threadmill as you see it.

the plane took off because it was going faster than the tarp it was running on (which is the lamest excuse for a valid experiment ever)... that's not part of the myth. the myth never says, "if a plane is on a treadmill and it keeps accelerating at a faster rate than the treadmill, will the plane take off?"... that's exactly what happened in the mythbusters clip i saw.

Are you guys TRYING to become the new Smackdowns?

They were going the exact same speed in opposite directions. I don't know how much clearer they can make it. The myth is that the treadmill(conveyor belt) matches the forward speed of the plane in the opposite direction. Because building a control system to do this would have been rather difficult they took the worst case scenario and pulled the conveyor at the take off speed of the plane. The plane accelerated and took off at just about its normal take off speed.

NO WHERE in the original problem does it say the plane remains stationary. The ONLY thing it says is that the speeds are matched in opposite directions. If you made the assumption that this would keep the plane in place you made a WRONG assumption.

The ONLY way to keep a plane from taking off is to make the thrust force = the force of inertia and friction. This would require the treadmill going much faster than the plane and therefore break the conditions given in the problem.

If you can't understand this from Jamie and Adam's "science" explanation, then you are simply being stubborn and refuse to accept the truth when its shoved in your face.

the new smackdowns? wtf is that?

no they weren't, dude. the plane obviously accelerates faster.

Smackdown was a guy who insisted the plane would not take off by some odd logic of his.

The plane will have constant acceleration in the positive direction unless horizontal forces cancel. This is simple F = ma. Because the treadmill does not impart significant enough force of the BODY of the plane to counter the force from the engines, the plane will accelerate to take off speed(NOTE: 25 MPH) even with the tarp moving 25MPH in the opposite direction.

If you can, sit down and draw out the FBD. Note that the force from the ground can only cause the wheels to spin(with slight forces of friction and inertia imparting a tiny force on the body of the plane). Now recognize that the only way for the plane's thrust to be countered is to run the treadmill at many times the planes forward speed. Which would violate the myth.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: eits
i've arrived at the conclusion that this myth is a myth due to the fact that it's worded in a way that it could be taken in two different ways... either that or it's been spread around so much that people got the wrong idea of what the myth originally was.

i don't care to find out what the original myth is asking, so whatever. i'm going to bed.

You read in your own assumption that the plane would remain stationary. If you can find that wording in the question I will grant you the question is vague. However, nowhere does it say this. You made an assumption that was incorrect and now you are blaming your mistake on the wording of the question.

 

[AbAbber2k]

LMAO at all the morons trying to change the wording of the myth because they just got owned. :roll:

eits, I expected more from you.

 

[Jeff7]

Geez, I go to sleep for a few hours and this is what happens? People don't grasp this problem, it's no wonder that general relativity is so mind-blowing to many. Then, time itself starts to change as a function of velocity, but the fun part is, velocity is a value in terms of time - meters per second.

I broke it down before, here it is again:
There have been multiple definitions of the problem presented.

1) The treadmill/conveyor belt's velocity matches the plane's takeoff speed from an otherwise immobile surface, like a runway. Here, the plane can easily take off, as was just shown on Mythbusters. That scenario isn't an issue.

2) The belt's velocity is a function of the wheels' rotational velocity. Here, unless it's an inverse exponential, or fraction of the belt velocity, the velocity of the wheels and belt will quickly approach infinity. Think of a looped relationship in Excel, where one cell's answer winds up referring back to itself.

3) The belt's velocity is carefully set so that it can speed up to any speed, so as to keep the plane stationary, as a result of the rotational inertia of the wheels, as well as bearing/rolling resistance. In theory this is possible, as the rotational inertia and rolling resistance are finite, measurable values. The problem is that the conveyor belt, and thus the plane's wheels, would likely have to move so quickly that the bearings would sustain damage.
If I had some numbers, such as wheel mass, wheel diameter, rolling resistance, engine thrust, and the overall mass of the plane, I think I could solve this problem (that is, determine how fast the wheels would need to rotate) using what was covered in my Dynamics class.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Geez, I go to sleep for a few hours and this is what happens? People don't grasp this problem, it's no wonder that general relativity is so mind-blowing to many. Then, time itself starts to change as a function of velocity, but the fun part is, velocity is a value in terms of time - meters per second.

I broke it down before, here it is again:
There have been multiple definitions of the problem presented.

1) The treadmill/conveyor belt's velocity matches the plane's takeoff speed from an otherwise immobile surface, like a runway. Here, the plane can easily take off, as was just shown on Mythbusters. That scenario isn't an issue.

2) The belt's velocity is a function of the wheels' rotational velocity. Here, unless it's an inverse exponential, or fraction of the belt velocity, the velocity of the wheels and belt will quickly approach infinity. Think of a looped relationship in Excel, where one cell's answer winds up referring back to itself.

3) The belt's velocity is carefully set so that it can speed up to any speed, so as to keep the plane stationary, as a result of the rotational inertia of the wheels, as well as bearing/rolling resistance. In theory this is possible, as the rotational inertia and rolling resistance are finite, measurable values. The problem is that the conveyor belt, and thus the plane's wheels, would likely have to move so quickly that the bearings would sustain damage.
If I had some numbers, such as wheel mass, wheel diameter, rolling resistance, engine thrust, and the overall mass of the plane, I think I could solve this problem (that is, determine how fast the wheels would need to rotate) using what was covered in my Dynamics class.

You think this is bad, go to the Discovery forum. They have DOZENS of people claiming to be Aero Engineers and pilots saying that they messed the myth up because the plane did not remain stationary. It's quite sad actually.

I take that back...don't go there, it will only make you mad. People that say "It shouldn't fly" are STILL in the majority there.