MythBusters

Page 28 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

PurdueRy

Lifer
Nov 12, 2004
13,837
4
0
Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: gsellis
Originally posted by: KK

So are you saying the belt has zero effect on the plane? Zero, Nada, Nil?
Negligible. There is some parasitic force on the plane because of resistance to spin in the wheels from inertia and friction. Otherwise, all force on the wheels translates to acceleration of the wheels. Remember physics where velocity is the speed along a specific vector for a period of time. Changing the vector is acceleration. F = ma. Assume mass =1 and F=a. A=dV/dt. So, just the wheels spin because that is how they work. Since they freewheel (except for that parasitic stuff), nothing on the plane allows energy the wheels store effect the plane. If you applied the brakes, then you translate the energy into heat and force on the plane, but only then.

But there is some, negligible at best, but that's all that's needed for people interpret this question in a different light. Mythbusters did it their way, but with most of the naysayers, they would say mythbusters didn't do it right per the question they heard or how they interpreted it. I don't think this is so much of a problem with physics but more to do with comprehension.

If you wanted to keep the plane stationary the treadmill would have to run at speed MUCH faster than the forward velocity of the plane. This would contradict the myth as stated. There is NO statement in the myth that says the plane will stay stationary. The only people that say this are the people that think a plane is a car with wings.

I don't believe many people actually believe that last sentence, atleast I hope not. I'd like to see the actual original myth if possible, not the version that mythbusters got handed, but the original.

as you can see in the original which was just posted, it makes no mention of keeping the plane stationary. It simply says that the treadmill matches the forward speed of the plane. Which they tested and proved that a plane can take off.

There is NO alternative way of thinking of this myth in this wording. The treadmill cannot create enough friction to stop the plane because it is limited to the take off speed of the craft...in this case 25mph. The plane won't travel faster than this so the treadmill can't either. Hence the "The conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction)."

 

KMc

Golden Member
Jan 26, 2007
1,149
0
76
Everybody else has put in their $0.02, so here's mine.

Here is a simple experiment to try that mimics the scenario:

Take a shipping box that is about the right size to fit within the width of a home treadmill belt. Put some weight in the box (books, bricks, what have you) to make it something around 10-20 lbs. or so.

Attach a piece of rope or twine to the box such that you can hold the box with your hand from in front of the treadmill. (You can poke a hole in the front of the box, thread the twine through and tie it around a pencil inside the box, then pull tight so the pencil is trapped against the inside of the box). Go to the front of the treadmill and pull the string taut to hold the box in place.

Turn the treadmill on some slow speed, say 3-5 mph. Note the amount of force it requires you to hold the box stationary(with respect to you). For those with fancy stuff, put a hanging scale between you and the box and you can measure this force. Note that pulling with any additional force than what you are resisting will allow you to pull the box toward you against the direction of the treadmill.

Now double the speed of the treadmill (6-10 mph). Note that the amount of increase in the force to hold the box in place did not double, or anywhere near that. Also note, that even the slightest additional pull will still allow you to pull the box toward you easily.

In this situation, the force you are imparting on the string is the same as the propulsion force of the airplane. The amount of force you are applying to the string to hold the box stationary (again, with repect to you) is the frictional force of the belt on the box. It is only loosely coupled to the speed of the belt, and any incremental additional force applied in excess of this frictional force will move the box forward.

This is somewhat a worst case scenario as far as friction is concerned, a flat box on a flat treadmill. If we now replace the flat surface of the box with wheels and bearings, that frictional force is orders of magnitude smaller and now almost completely independent of the speed of the belt (ref. Engineering Mechanics 101 - rolling vs. sliding friction). So, in conclusion, the only force preventing the plane from moving forward with respect to the earth is the frictional force of the belt on the wheels and bearings. It is a very small force compared to the available propulsion force of the plane, and once the plane overcomes it, it begins moving forward and generating airspeed. And since this frictional force does not significantly increase with the speed of the belt, unless the belt is moving so fast that the mechanical properties of the bearings and wheels are destroyed by the heat buildup, the plane indeed takes off.
 

Viper GTS

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
38,107
433
136
I'm glad the MB crew did a good job on this (haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but I will). We'd have never forgiven them if they fucked this one up.

The answer should have been obvious to anyone with any physics background at all. Even for those without the simple analogies that have been posted, re-posted, and re-re-posted should have made the situation clear to the stragglers.

I think we can safely declare anybody that's left behind to be a lost cause.

Viper GTS
 

PurdueRy

Lifer
Nov 12, 2004
13,837
4
0
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
I'm glad the MB crew did a good job on this (haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but I will). We'd have never forgiven them if they fucked this one up.

The answer should have been obvious to anyone with any physics background at all. Even for those without the simple analogies that have been posted, re-posted, and re-re-posted should have made the situation clear to the stragglers.

I think we can safely declare anybody that's left behind to be a lost cause.

Viper GTS

Note that Jamie(sp) said immediately "I know what I think will happen" and adam stopped him. To these guys, who understand basic physics to some extent, the solution is easy.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,963
16,214
126
now I need to go find a truck load of salmon. Would the one whom thought plane does not take off kindly form a line over here? The salmons will be here shortly from the farm.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Originally posted by: sdifox
now I need to go find a truck load of salmon. Would the one whom thought plane does not take off kindly form a line over here? The salmons will be here shortly from the farm.

salmon?

wouldn't trout be better to slap them with?
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
First off, there is absolutely no difference between a treadmill and a conveyor belt. A treadmill is a conveyor belt specifically designed for humans to run on to exercise. In this case, the words are interchangeable, so no more complaining about that.

Second, the plane takes off. That's been described. A lot. In detail.

Now to address some specific posts:

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
So are you saying the belt has zero effect on the plane? Zero, Nada, Nil?

No, it's not actually zero.

It is effectively zero for purposes of the myth.

You can try to hold back a car from driving away by attaching it with a thin string to a sturdy post.

The string does exert a force to keep the car from moving and we can measure that force. That force exists, but it's effectively zero because the car will easily break the string and accelerate away normally.

This isn't a great example because a string tied to a post is acting as an anchor, and you'd break the string as you pulled away in either the plane or the car, because both generate enough forward thrust to break the string. The plane does not "break" the conveyor belt; the conveyor belt is not acting as an anchor, nor as a significant counter to the primary thrust of the plane (which comes from the plane's engine acting on the air).

Seeing as how the plane's primary thrust is the engine moving the air, a conveyor belt will have little effect. A car's primary thrust comes from its engine turning the wheels pushing it along the ground, which a conveyor belt WILL effect. A better analogy to the plane on a conveyor belt is a car in a wind tunnel. If you set up a giant fan pushing wind at a speed of 25 mph in front of a car, would the car be pushed backwards at that speed? No. Would the car have to do more than 25 mph to move forward? No. The car's primary thrust is not based in air, it is based along the ground.

So it seems to me that anyone who thinks the plane won't take off is also of the frame of mind that it is impossible to drive in a stiff breeze.

Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: FoBoT
not drag, you mean lift

it'll have lift as it accelerates normally
the engine pushes on the air, not on the ground

doesn't that depend what kinda plane they're using? I guess I'll find out in a few hours.

No. Every plane engine pushes air. If a plane gained velocity by spinning its wheels, it could take off... but what would happen when it started to lose velocity (air will exert friction on the plane, slowing it down)? The wheels would have nothing to spin on to generate more speed and the plane would come back down. Then you'd have to get up to speed again to take off. If this were how planes flew, they'd have to have bounce pads all over the place for planes to regain speed. But a plane's engines don't work that way. They push air horizontally which moves the plane forward to generate air movement over the wings. The engines themselves do not move air over the wings any more than they spin the tires.


An analogy I read in the last thread which helped me visualize this better is to imagine something we're more familiar with than jumbo jets. Imagine a toy plane, like an RC car version of a plane. It has wheels which spin freely. Imagine putting this toy plane on a treadmill. You turn the treadmill on, you up the speed, and you hold the plane in place. Does it get harder to hold the plane still as the treadmill goes faster? Not really. I mean, it's not like at 2 mph everything is hunky dory, but if you get it up to 15 mph, you've really got to lean into the plane to hold it in place. This is what the wheels on a plane exist for; they free spin to match whatever speed the plane happens to be at relative to the ground it is on.

Now imagine yourself pushing this plane forward. Doesn't take much effort, does it. Push the plane up the treadmill. Now turn the treadmill off and push the plane up it again. Not really much of a change in how much effort it takes. The thrust is not coming from the wheels, so the treadmill does effectively nothing to counter the thrust. Regardless of how fast you make that treadmill spin, you will still be able to push this toy plane up it.

In the real world, the thrust of a plane does not come from the wheels. No matter how fast you get that treadmill, it is doing effectively nothing to counter the thrust generated by the plane's engines on the air. The plane will still move forward, and because it is moving forward, air is moving across the wings (which is the sole consideration in whether or not a plane will take off). The plane will take off.


Oh, and to everyone who thinks that the treadmill could effectively spin fast enough to keep the plane from moving because it does have some friction with the plane, this is not really fair. At the speed the treadmill would need to move to generate the friction on the wheels to completely counter the forward thrust of the plane's engines, the wheels would burst, and the plane would fall onto its undercarriage, which would exhibit much more friction than the wheels, and since the treadmill was still moving, the plane would be hurled backwards along the treadmill. But that's not the myth, and it never has been. You can reword it in lots of different ways to make the plane not take off, but as the myth originally stands, the plane takes off.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,963
16,214
126
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: sdifox
now I need to go find a truck load of salmon. Would the one whom thought plane does not take off kindly form a line over here? The salmons will be here shortly from the farm.

salmon?

wouldn't trout be better to slap them with?

trout is part of the salmon family, except much smaller.

A Chinook can grow to 57kg (125lb)

Record brown trout is 18.25kg (40lb)

you do the math on kinetic differential

It''s the difference between swinging a sledgehammer and a wrecking ball
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: sdifox
now I need to go find a truck load of salmon. Would the one whom thought plane does not take off kindly form a line over here? The salmons will be here shortly from the farm.

salmon?

wouldn't trout be better to slap them with?

trout is part of the salmon family, except much smaller.

A Chinook can grow to 57kg (125lb)

Record brown trout is 18.25kg (40lb)

you do the math on kinetic differential

yes, but it is tradition to use trout, not salmon

Text
 

cHeeZeFacTory

Golden Member
Apr 23, 2001
1,658
0
0
I was expecting to go into this thread today, and expect everyone to finally agree that there is no doubt the plane will take off.

I can't believe some of you guys still believe the plane won't take off. It was shown on the youtube video, it was shown again on the show. It couldn't be any clearer. Maybe just go take a couple courses in college physics??? or just start of with some logic classes.

Even the hosts seemed kind of bored with the myth, because right from the start they already knew the answer to the myth.
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,082
12
76
fobot.com
no one has ever been "salmon slapped"

it is definetly "trout slapped"

now if you need to chop down a large tree, then you need a herring


but for slapping the sense back into someone, always use a trout

 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,963
16,214
126
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: sdifox
now I need to go find a truck load of salmon. Would the one whom thought plane does not take off kindly form a line over here? The salmons will be here shortly from the farm.

salmon?

wouldn't trout be better to slap them with?

trout is part of the salmon family, except much smaller.

A Chinook can grow to 57kg (125lb)

Record brown trout is 18.25kg (40lb)

you do the math on kinetic differential

yes, but it is tradition to use trout, not salmon

Text

I am Canadian, hence the Salmon.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Originally posted by: FoBoT
no one has ever been "salmon slapped"

it is definetly "trout slapped"

now if you need to chop down a large tree, then you need a herring


but for slapping the sense back into someone, always use a trout

thank you.
 

biggestmuff

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2001
8,201
2
0
Originally posted by: FoBoT
no one has ever been "salmon slapped"

it is definetly "trout slapped"

now if you need to chop down a large tree, then you need a herring


but for slapping the sense back into someone, always use a trout

Dude. Come on. You're better than that. To down a tree, use a sawfish.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,143
30,099
146
Originally posted by: 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.

why so shocked? by his own telling, smackdown practically invented flight, and I'm sure he still remains entrenched in the will not fly camp
 

PurdueRy

Lifer
Nov 12, 2004
13,837
4
0
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: 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.

why so shocked? by his own telling, smackdown practically invented flight, and I'm sure he still remains entrenched in the will not fly camp

The things that are said over there are so wrong its rediculous.

Someone claimed the experiment was flawed because the planes prop was tilted upwards and therefore created its own lift and that's why it took off!
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
This isn't a great example

It was a good example of a force that does exist in fact, but doesn't exist for discussion purposes of the scenario, which is what I was explaining.

In considering the airplane/conveyor question in general conversation, wheel bearing friction does not have any real effect on the outcome, so it can be disregarded.

If you are going to precisely discuss and lay out the problem, then you would have to include the wheel bearing friction even though it has no effect on the outcome.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,143
30,099
146
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.

the point is that the only way for that to happen, is that the plane must be tethered in some way. that is what the myth is asking: can a treadmill matching the wheels' speed in reverse keep a plane stationary?

No, it can't.
once you get yourself past this issue, you will understand the problem.

you automatically assume that the treadmill will keep the plane stationary, and can't get past that point. The plane was indeed matching the speed of the treadmill, but it still overcomes the treadmills non-effect on the plane. I don't know what more it would take to convince you people.

this did not break the parameters of the question. the plane will move forward regardless of the treadmill exactly matching the spinning wheels. that is the motherfucking problem at issue here.
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
First off, there is absolutely no difference between a treadmill and a conveyor belt. A treadmill is a conveyor belt specifically designed for humans to run on to exercise. In this case, the words are interchangeable, so no more complaining about that.
Actually, there is a difference. Many folks automatically assume that when you say treadmill, the plane is on some device about 3 feet in length, which is a false assumption based on the original question. It makes their little minds work in an even smaller box. It it were an exercise treadmill, the plane rolls off of it within a second
 

PurdueRy

Lifer
Nov 12, 2004
13,837
4
0
Originally posted by: gsellis
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
First off, there is absolutely no difference between a treadmill and a conveyor belt. A treadmill is a conveyor belt specifically designed for humans to run on to exercise. In this case, the words are interchangeable, so no more complaining about that.
Actually, there is a difference. Many folks automatically assume that when you say treadmill, the plane is on some device about 3 feet in length, which is a false assumption based on the original question. It makes their little minds work in an even smaller box. It it were an exercise treadmill, the plane rolls off of it within a second

Then that is a false assumption. Nowhere in the problem does it say the "treadmils" length. So you can not assume it to be a finite distance.
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,082
12
76
fobot.com
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Originally posted by: FoBoT
no one has ever been "salmon slapped"

it is definetly "trout slapped"

now if you need to chop down a large tree, then you need a herring


but for slapping the sense back into someone, always use a trout

Dude. Come on. You're better than that. To down a tree, use a sawfish.

you can't "chop" with a saw :roll:

next thing , you'll be posting that an airplane can't take off from a conveyor belt or something stupid
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
Originally posted by: gsellis
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
First off, there is absolutely no difference between a treadmill and a conveyor belt. A treadmill is a conveyor belt specifically designed for humans to run on to exercise. In this case, the words are interchangeable, so no more complaining about that.
Actually, there is a difference. Many folks automatically assume that when you say treadmill, the plane is on some device about 3 feet in length, which is a false assumption based on the original question. It makes their little minds work in an even smaller box. It it were an exercise treadmill, the plane rolls off of it within a second

Then that is a false assumption. Nowhere in the problem does it say the "treadmils" length. So you can not assume it to be a finite distance.
We are on the same page. If you search back over the last couple hundred posts ( ), you will see where I have mentioned that it was a conveyor belt. No matter what, the plane still needs its normal takeoff roll to get in the air, which is another thing folks have a problem understanding. They think the plane will stay in place and magically shoot in the sky. Hopefully they watched. Sigh.

On Boortz, Neal had a letter from a recruiter in the airline industry (wonder if we work for the same company) that said he was going to ask this question of recruits. Very simple test to weed out the chaff.

 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,143
30,099
146
Originally posted by: BigDH01
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
"On a day with absolutely calm wind, a plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyor). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyor moves in the opposite direction. The conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the airplane ever take off?"

Mythbusters just answered that twice.

The airplane will take off as if it was on a stationary runway.

You should go to the Discovery forums and tell them this. From the first few pages of the forum thread, it would appear that the number of people that say it won't fly still outnumber the people that say it will. This leads me to one of two conclusions:

1) people still aren't bright enough to get it

2) people are too stubborn to admit they are wrong

Either way, does humanity really stand a chance? We keep developing new cutting edge technologies but is the majority of the population actually able to understand the technology and its consequences? Is humanity smart enough to survive?

you frighten me, sir.


 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,143
30,099
146
Originally posted by: PurdueRy


The things that are said over there are so wrong its rediculous.

Someone claimed the experiment was flawed because the planes prop was tilted upwards and therefore created its own lift and that's why it took off!

no, that's ridiculous!
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |