MythBusters

[zinfamous]

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.

besides the fact that the youtube guy (linked within the first two pages here), demonstrated a model plane that did not roll off the back of an exercise treadmill.

 

[sdifox]

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

I tried trout, didn't work. Smackdown and his ilk still talked silly. Switching to a bigger fish. If salmon doesn't work, I'll try tuna.


think Monty Python.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: sdifox

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

I tried trout, didn't work. Switching to a bigger fish. If salmon doesn't work, I'll try tuna.

try a larger species of trout, lake trout get quite large or this one from mongolia

http://news.nationalgeographic...4-taimen-mongolia.html

A ferocious and even cannibalistic predator , taimen can grow more than six feet (up to two meters) in length and can weigh up to 200 pounds (91 kilograms).

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: sdifox

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

I tried trout, didn't work. Smackdown and his ilk still talked silly. Switching to a bigger fish. If salmon doesn't work, I'll try tuna.

The problem is that you may not be able to swing the size of fish it might take to knock some sense in them.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: sdifox

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

I tried trout, didn't work. Switching to a bigger fish. If salmon doesn't work, I'll try tuna.

try a larger species of trout, lake trout get quite large or this one from mongolia

http://news.nationalgeographic...4-taimen-mongolia.html

A ferocious and even cannibalistic predator , taimen can grow more than six feet (up to two meters) in length and can weigh up to 200 pounds (91 kilograms).

Fine, a Chinese trout it is. Way to kill my fun.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: sdifox

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

I tried trout, didn't work. Smackdown and his ilk still talked silly. Switching to a bigger fish. If salmon doesn't work, I'll try tuna.

The problem is that you may not be able to swing the size of fish it might take to knock some sense in them.

that is what cranes are for.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

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!

Indeed!

 

[BigJ]

The last few pages of this thread sadden me.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: sdifox

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

I tried trout, didn't work. Smackdown and his ilk still talked silly. Switching to a bigger fish. If salmon doesn't work, I'll try tuna.

The problem is that you may not be able to swing the size of fish it might take to knock some sense in them.

that is what cranes are for.

Wait, if we put this big fish on a conveyor belt, we can launch it at them...

 

[Skunkwourk]

Would it make a difference if the air was exhausted out of the back, would air still pass over the wings? Sorry Im dumb.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: sdifox

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

I tried trout, didn't work. Smackdown and his ilk still talked silly. Switching to a bigger fish. If salmon doesn't work, I'll try tuna.

The problem is that you may not be able to swing the size of fish it might take to knock some sense in them.

that is what cranes are for.

Wait, if we put this big fish on a conveyor belt, we can launch it at them...

Under the National Wildlife Protection Act, it is illegal to place large fish on conveyor belts. Doubly so if they're not the properly authorized fish for chopping down shrubberies, trees, and or related foliage.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: m0mentary
Would it make a difference if the air was exhausted out of the back, would air still pass over the wings? Sorry Im dumb.

no difference

 

[Skunkwourk]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: m0mentary
Would it make a difference if the air was exhausted out of the back, would air still pass over the wings? Sorry Im dumb.

no difference

so jet or biplane, its all the same?

 

[LTC8K6]

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.

No, but the point is that the pilot is trying to take off and if he's trying to take off on a conveyor that is too short for the test, then why ask the question?

In fact, the conveyor's length matters not a whit, as long as the transitions to/from the actual runway are smooth.

Short or long, fast or slow, the conveyor is irrelevant.

As far as the plane and pilot are concerned, there is no conveyor, for all reasonable discussions.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: m0mentary
Would it make a difference if the air was exhausted out of the back, would air still pass over the wings? Sorry Im dumb.

For this model, no.

A pusher is more efficient that a puller (out the back vs over the wing) in that the wing surfaces and fuselage detract from the best thrust it can generate. But, it will not effect the wing such that the airplane will take off. If it did, that kind of VSTOL aircraft would be everywhere.

 

[LTC8K6]

so jet or biplane, its all the same?

Jet, prop, rocket, ion drive...

As long as forward thrust is not from the wheels and there is little friction with the conveyor, away it goes like normal.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: smack Down

Energy isn't used it is converted from one form to another. Just explain how the plane gets the additional energy.

Regardless of energy, a plane and a car do not behave identically on a treadmill. Look through this thread - watch the youtube videos if you really don't believe us, but the freaking plane takes off.

Right lets ignore the physics and look at a video. Want me to post a video of a pound of fathers falling and a pound of lead as proof that gravity affects them differently?

You aren't understanding. A treadmill can't stop a plane by moving backwards at the same speed as the plane moves forwards, because a plane has wheels to almost remove friction with the runway.

Picture a plane with skids on an ice treadmill instead.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: m0mentary

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: m0mentary
Would it make a difference if the air was exhausted out of the back, would air still pass over the wings? Sorry Im dumb.

no difference

so jet or biplane, its all the same?

Essentially. While the jet generates a lot more thrust, the biplane is better for this because with its lightweight and lifting surfaces, you need a shorter conveyor. Best "jet" that is not a VTOL on takeoff roll that I know is a F15C ~= 900ft. The old bi-planes have a couple hundred foot rolls.

 

[Chronoshock]

Can we please get back to talking about the foam?

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Chronoshock
Can we please get back to talking about the foam?

if you stuffed a large trout with a-b foam and slapped somebody, it would hurt like a mofo. I would daresay you could break a guy's face with it.


How about we have jamie and adam do this one?

<mythbusters voice>
If you stuff a large trout with A-B foam and slapped somebody with it, does the trout exert enough force to break the facial bones?
</mythbusters voice>

 

[Chronoshock]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Chronoshock
Can we please get back to talking about the foam?

if you stuffed a large trout with a-b foam and slapped somebody, it would hurt like a mofo. I would daresay you could break a guy's face with it.


How about we have jamie and adam do this one?

<mythbusters voice>
If you stuff a large trout with A-B foam and slapped somebody with it, does the trout exert enough force to break the facial bones?
</mythbusters voice>

Could the trout contain the expansion or would it just sort of ooze out of its mouth?
If it contained it, then it would be stiff enough to break bones given the right amount of force, otherwise no

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Chronoshock

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Chronoshock
Can we please get back to talking about the foam?

if you stuffed a large trout with a-b foam and slapped somebody, it would hurt like a mofo. I would daresay you could break a guy's face with it.


How about we have jamie and adam do this one?

<mythbusters voice>
If you stuff a large trout with A-B foam and slapped somebody with it, does the trout exert enough force to break the facial bones?
</mythbusters voice>

Could the trout contain the expansion or would it just sort of ooze out of its mouth?
If it contained it, then it would be stiff enough to break bones given the right amount of force, otherwise no

Depending on how much A-B foam you put in, that trout may burst like a friggin' balloon.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Chronoshock
Can we please get back to talking about the foam?

if you stuffed a large trout with a-b foam and slapped somebody, it would hurt like a mofo. I would daresay you could break a guy's face with it.


How about we have jamie and adam do this one?

<mythbusters voice>
If you stuff a large trout with A-B foam and slapped somebody with it, does the trout exert enough force to break the facial bones?
</mythbusters voice>

So, it is a myth than that the trout will explode? Did they drain the oil out of it before they tested it like they did with the car?

 

[LTC8K6]

Say, what if we had a magic river and a floatplane?

Now our floatplane pilot is tied up at the dock and he needs to take off upriver, against the current, to deliver vitamins to starving babies.

But the local horrible wicked wizard has cursed the river, because he hates bush pilots.

The cursed river always matches the forward speed of any floatplane that tries to take off against it's flow.

Will our heroic bush pilot ever be able to take off and save the babies?

Yes, my friends, he will.

Why?

Because the floats provide a low friction surface for the plane, just like wheel bearings do on a regular plane, and skis do on a plane that takes off on snow/ice.

The wheel bearings, the floats, and the skis all do the same thing.

They basically disconnect the plane from the surface it's resting on.

They make it very diffcult for that surface to impede their forward speed.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

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.

No, but the point is that the pilot is trying to take off and if he's trying to take off on a conveyor that is too short for the test, then why ask the question?

In fact, the conveyor's length matters not a whit, as long as the transitions to/from the actual runway are smooth.

Short or long, fast or slow, the conveyor is irrelevant.

As far as the plane and pilot are concerned, there is no conveyor, for all reasonable discussions.

I am agreeing with you. I was just saying that if someone tried to say that it won't take off because treadmills don't have enough length for the plane to pick up speed then they made an assumption that may not be correct.

That is the problem with the people that think the MB did it wrong. They made assumptions in their head that are incorrect.