MythBusters

Page 35 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
There is no interpretation of the problem... there is simply the lone single original version.


"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?"




http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/s...3/motivator4773398.jpg
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
I have a few questions that I'd like our resident genius smack Down to answer:

A car is sitting on a moving conveyor belt with its throttle set to keep it stationary. What happens if the conveyor's speed increases?

A plane is sitting on a moving conveyor belt with its throttle set to keep it stationary. What happens if the conveyor's speed increases?
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Venix
I have a few questions that I'd like our resident genius smack Down to answer:

A car is sitting on a moving conveyor belt with its throttle set to keep it stationary. What happens if the conveyor's speed increases?

A plane is sitting on a moving conveyor belt with its throttle set to keep it stationary. What happens if the conveyor's speed increases?

In the ideal case both throttles are off. The object will both go backwards. How much backwards depends on the their mass and moment of inertia. If you consider friction and it increases the objects will move backwards and at increasing speeds if the friction increased.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: sao123
There is no interpretation of the problem... there is simply the lone single original version.


"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?"




http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/s...3/motivator4773398.jpg

Speed with out a reference is ambiguous. That is the problem with your wording it is up to the reader to determine what you mean by "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)"
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: smack Down
The only thing I'm trying to show in this thread is that the idea that under one reading the plane takes off because it is different from a car is completely wrong.

Wrong again. Take a physics class please.

Take an dynamics class please.
 

PurdueRy

Lifer
Nov 12, 2004
13,837
4
0
Originally posted by: Venix
I have a few questions that I'd like our resident genius smack Down to answer:

A car is sitting on a moving conveyor belt with its throttle set to keep it stationary. What happens if the conveyor's speed increases?

A plane is sitting on a moving conveyor belt with its throttle set to keep it stationary. What happens if the conveyor's speed increases?

That's a bad question actually...
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,127
10,970
136
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: smack Down
The only thing I'm trying to show in this thread is that the idea that under one reading the plane takes off because it is different from a car is completely wrong.

Wrong again. Take a physics class please.

Take an dynamics class please.

if you've taken dynamics, you should understand how the tires will be behaving. since you don't understand the tires, you clearly haven't taken dynamics.

self-pwned.
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Venix
I have a few questions that I'd like our resident genius smack Down to answer:

A car is sitting on a moving conveyor belt with its throttle set to keep it stationary. What happens if the conveyor's speed increases?

A plane is sitting on a moving conveyor belt with its throttle set to keep it stationary. What happens if the conveyor's speed increases?

In the ideal case both throttles are off. The object will both go backwards. How much backwards depends on the their mass and moment of inertia. If you consider friction and it increases the objects will move backwards and continue to move backwards if the friction increased.

BZZZZT.

The plane stays stationary even when the treadmill speed increases 10x.
 

PurdueRy

Lifer
Nov 12, 2004
13,837
4
0
Originally posted by: Venix
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Venix
I have a few questions that I'd like our resident genius smack Down to answer:

A car is sitting on a moving conveyor belt with its throttle set to keep it stationary. What happens if the conveyor's speed increases?

A plane is sitting on a moving conveyor belt with its throttle set to keep it stationary. What happens if the conveyor's speed increases?

In the ideal case both throttles are off. The object will both go backwards. How much backwards depends on the their mass and moment of inertia. If you consider friction and it increases the objects will move backwards and continue to move backwards if the friction increased.

BZZZZT.

The plane stays stationary even when the treadmill speed increases 10x.

There is mathematically a small increase in throttle needed....just very tiny. Very very tiny.
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
Originally posted by: Venix
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Venix
I have a few questions that I'd like our resident genius smack Down to answer:

A car is sitting on a moving conveyor belt with its throttle set to keep it stationary. What happens if the conveyor's speed increases?

A plane is sitting on a moving conveyor belt with its throttle set to keep it stationary. What happens if the conveyor's speed increases?

In the ideal case both throttles are off. The object will both go backwards. How much backwards depends on the their mass and moment of inertia. If you consider friction and it increases the objects will move backwards and continue to move backwards if the friction increased.

BZZZZT.

The plane stays stationary even when the treadmill speed increases 10x.

There is mathematically a small increase in throttle needed....just very tiny. Very very tiny.

Does it matter? The point of the exercise is to debunk smack Down's claim that cars and planes behave identically.

Whether the plane is exactly stationary or moving backwards at some unmeasurable rate is irrelevant. A car in the same situation would move backwards at a very obvious (new_treadmill_speed - old_treadmill_speed) MPH.
 

PurdueRy

Lifer
Nov 12, 2004
13,837
4
0
Originally posted by: Venix
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
Originally posted by: Venix
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Venix
I have a few questions that I'd like our resident genius smack Down to answer:

A car is sitting on a moving conveyor belt with its throttle set to keep it stationary. What happens if the conveyor's speed increases?

A plane is sitting on a moving conveyor belt with its throttle set to keep it stationary. What happens if the conveyor's speed increases?

In the ideal case both throttles are off. The object will both go backwards. How much backwards depends on the their mass and moment of inertia. If you consider friction and it increases the objects will move backwards and continue to move backwards if the friction increased.

BZZZZT.

The plane stays stationary even when the treadmill speed increases 10x.

There is mathematically a small increase in throttle needed....just very tiny. Very very tiny.

Does it matter? The point of the exercise is to debunk smack Down's claim that cars and planes behave identically.

Whether the plane is exactly stationary or moving backwards at some unmeasurable rate is irrelevant. A car in the same situation would move backwards at a very obvious (new_treadmill_speed - old_treadmill_speed) MPH.

Agreed. Just I knew that smackdown would post that they would both move backwards which is technically true. However, they move backward at very different speeds as you said.

Smackdown, answer Cold steel's questions:

OK. One last attempt.

A car, with a maximum ground speed of 100mph, is on a conveyor running backwards at 100mph. The car stands still, relative to the ground. Correct?

A plane, with a maximum air speed of 100mph, is on a conveyor running backwards at 100mph. The plane moves forward at 100mph, relative to the ground, and becomes airborn. Correct?

Please be sure to answer both questions.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: smack Down
Take an dynamics class please.

if you've taken dynamics, you should understand how the tires will be behaving. since you don't understand the tires, you clearly haven't taken dynamics.

self-pwned.
Agreed. I've had a dynamics class. I have presented, twice in this thread, three possible interpretations of the problem.

The treadmill's velocity cannot be a function of the rotational speed of the wheels, as the rotational velocity of the wheels is a function of not only the plane's forward velocity, but also of the linear velocity of the treadmill. The two velocities are functions of each other. As has been said, if you try to increase the velocity of one, it'll affect the other, which will immediately affect the initial component. Result: infinite velocity of both components.


But what the hell, here, again, are the three scenarios:

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 is no longer an issue, as it was shown experimentally, twice.

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. *already discounted as a physically impossible scenario

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.

Scenario 3 is the most complex one, as it involves many variables, such as friction, and uses principles from dynamics, such as the rotational inertia of the wheels, and rolling resistance.
In the real world, if you'd put a plane on a conveyor belt, engines off, and started up the belt, the plane would indeed move backward, and the wheels would begin to rotate, though slowly. The result would be that the plane's backward velocity would be slightly less than that of the treadmill's, due to the motion of the wheels, but this velocity would be a nonzero component.
Given that the wheels have rotational inertia, and given that the bearings have friction, and given a treadmill capable of any velocity or acceleration, yes, you could increase its speed to produce a force acting against the forward force of the plane's engines. If I had some numbers, such as wheel dimensions and weight, their rolling resistance, plane weight, and engine thrust, I could tell you how fast the treadmill would have to be moving in order to hold the plane stationary.

I have a feeling though that the treadmill would have to move so fast to hold the plane still, that the wheel bearings on the airplane would overheat and sustain damage, or else the tires would fly apart.
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Smack Down - I'm encouraged that there are fewer people who still believe that the plane won't take off than there are who believe that .999... doesn't equal 1. Ironically, even dealing with special education students in my high school, I've been 100% successful in getting them to understand both problems. (I frequently use problems such as this because while they seem somewhat unrelated to the curriculum, they're entertaining and get students to actually think.)

Unfortunately, it appears that the vast majority of people on these forums have been incapable of doing the same with you - getting you to stop and think. Personally, I've given up. I guess I just have to accept the fact that there are people in the world who still believe the earth is flat (idiots). There are people who believe the moon landings were a hoax (idiots). There are people who think .999... is less than 1 (idiots). And, there are people who despite all the appropriate explanations, seem to think the plane can't take off. ( )

Should I be impressed that you can Bullshit retards. If the plan can take off depends entirely on how you read the problem. The only thing I'm trying to show in this thread is that the idea that under one reading the plane takes off because it is different from a car is completely wrong.

The only thing you've managed to show is your lack of reading comprehension, your lack of ability to formulate coherent thoughts, and your lack of any understanding of physics.

You forgot something: and that the special education kids are smarter
Vote for special avatar for SmackDown.
 

Cold Steel

Member
Dec 23, 2007
168
0
0
Originally posted by: Cold Steel
Originally posted by: smack Down

When you said that you are clearly talking about the wheel speed of the car. If you are not then what speed are you talking about. I simply applied the same to the plane.

Sigh.....

Yes, I was talking about the car's wheel speed. That's how a car moves. By the tires "pushing" agains the ground. That's NOT how a plane moves.

OK. One last attempt.

A car, with a maximum ground speed of 100mph, is on a conveyor running backwards at 100mph. The car stands still, relative to the ground. Correct?

A plane, with a maximum air speed of 100mph, is on a conveyor running backwards at 100mph. The plane moves forward at 100mph, relative to the ground, and becomes airborn. Correct?

Please be sure to answer both questions.

smackdown, please answer......

 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: smack Down
Take an dynamics class please.

if you've taken dynamics, you should understand how the tires will be behaving. since you don't understand the tires, you clearly haven't taken dynamics.

self-pwned.
Agreed. I've had a dynamics class. I have presented, twice in this thread, three possible interpretations of the problem.

The treadmill's velocity cannot be a function of the rotational speed of the wheels, as the rotational velocity of the wheels is a function of not only the plane's forward velocity, but also of the linear velocity of the treadmill. The two velocities are functions of each other. As has been said, if you try to increase the velocity of one, it'll affect the other, which will immediately affect the initial component. Result: infinite velocity of both components.


But what the hell, here, again, are the three scenarios:

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 is no longer an issue, as it was shown experimentally, twice.

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. *already discounted as a physically impossible scenario

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.

Scenario 3 is the most complex one, as it involves many variables, such as friction, and uses principles from dynamics, such as the rotational inertia of the wheels, and rolling resistance.
In the real world, if you'd put a plane on a conveyor belt, engines off, and started up the belt, the plane would indeed move backward, and the wheels would begin to rotate, though slowly. The result would be that the plane's backward velocity would be slightly less than that of the treadmill's, due to the motion of the wheels, but this velocity would be a nonzero component.
Given that the wheels have rotational inertia, and given that the bearings have friction, and given a treadmill capable of any velocity or acceleration, yes, you could increase its speed to produce a force acting against the forward force of the plane's engines. If I had some numbers, such as wheel dimensions and weight, their rolling resistance, plane weight, and engine thrust, I could tell you how fast the treadmill would have to be moving in order to hold the plane stationary.

I have a feeling though that the treadmill would have to move so fast to hold the plane still, that the wheel bearings on the airplane would overheat and sustain damage, or else the tires would fly apart.

Your Scenarios 2 and 3 are the same.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Cold Steel
Originally posted by: Cold Steel
Originally posted by: smack Down

When you said that you are clearly talking about the wheel speed of the car. If you are not then what speed are you talking about. I simply applied the same to the plane.

Sigh.....

Yes, I was talking about the car's wheel speed. That's how a car moves. By the tires "pushing" agains the ground. That's NOT how a plane moves.

OK. One last attempt.

A car, with a maximum ground speed of 100mph, is on a conveyor running backwards at 100mph. The car stands still, relative to the ground. Correct?

A plane, with a maximum air speed of 100mph, is on a conveyor running backwards at 100mph. The plane moves forward at 100mph, relative to the ground, and becomes airborn. Correct?

Please be sure to answer both questions.

smackdown, please answer......

Answer what that when you define the problem differently for a car and a plane you get different result.
 

Cold Steel

Member
Dec 23, 2007
168
0
0
How is it different??

The plane and car are both going 100mph on a conveyor going 100mph in the opposite direction. The car is stationary, relative to the ground. The plane moves forward, relative to the ground and takes off. Please don't evade. Answer. Are both statements correct?
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Cold Steel
How is it different??

The plane and car are both going 100mph on a conveyor going 100mph in the opposite direction. The car is stationary, relative to the ground. The plane moves forward, relative to the ground and takes off. Please don't evade. Answer. Are both statements correct?

You are defining the speed for the plane different then for the car.
 

Cold Steel

Member
Dec 23, 2007
168
0
0
OK. I have tried to be patient with you.

I am NOT defining the speed different for the plane and the car. That was the whole point of exactly what I posted.

I do not usually resort to personal attacks on forums, but in your case I feel totally justified.

You, sir, have got to be without question the dumbest f*ck I have ever come across. You have no knowledge of anything you post about. You are a complete troll. A total dumbass, a moron. I could go on, but that's enough. I am done with you, idiot.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
*sigh*

A dead horse rests on a treadmill. If this dead horse is beaten enough, will it take off?
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Cold Steel
OK. I have tried to be patient with you.

I am NOT defining the speed different for the plane and the car. That was the whole point of exactly what I posted.

I do not usually resort to personal attacks on forums, but in your case I feel totally justified.

You, sir, have got to be without question the dumbest f*ck I have ever come across. You have no knowledge of anything you post about. You are a complete troll. A total dumbass, a moron. I could go on, but that's enough. I am done with you, idiot.

A car, with a maximum ground speed of 100mph, is on a conveyor running backwards at 100mph. The car stands still, relative to the ground. Correct?

A plane, with a maximum air speed of 100mph, is on a conveyor running backwards at 100mph. The plane moves forward at 100mph, relative to the ground, and becomes airborn. Correct?

Which part of different don't you understand?
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
Originally posted by: Venix
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Venix
I have a few questions that I'd like our resident genius smack Down to answer:

A car is sitting on a moving conveyor belt with its throttle set to keep it stationary. What happens if the conveyor's speed increases?

A plane is sitting on a moving conveyor belt with its throttle set to keep it stationary. What happens if the conveyor's speed increases?

In the ideal case both throttles are off. The object will both go backwards. How much backwards depends on the their mass and moment of inertia. If you consider friction and it increases the objects will move backwards and continue to move backwards if the friction increased.

BZZZZT.

The plane stays stationary even when the treadmill speed increases 10x.

Come on, genius, I'm still waiting for a reply. Do you seriously believe that a car will behave exactly like the plane in that video?
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
There's no way that the plane would take off. The damn engines would be clogged by running over all of the damn joggers/runners on the damn treadmill.

Seriously, who gives a poop?

 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: sao123
There is no interpretation of the problem... there is simply the lone single original version.


"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?"




http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/s...3/motivator4773398.jpg

Speed with out a reference is ambiguous. That is the problem with your wording it is up to the reader to determine what you mean by "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)"


the reference is already defined for you. There is only 1 which makes sense.
The treadmille as a whole is completely stationary. It has a rotational speed component, but as a whole the treadmille itself does not move.
The airplane speed is measured as the net distance the aircraft has moved with respect to the entire treadmille as a whole divided by the time it took to move that net displacement.

The rotational velocity of the treadmille = the airspeed velocity of the plane.
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Cold Steel
OK. I have tried to be patient with you.

I am NOT defining the speed different for the plane and the car. That was the whole point of exactly what I posted.

I do not usually resort to personal attacks on forums, but in your case I feel totally justified.

You, sir, have got to be without question the dumbest f*ck I have ever come across. You have no knowledge of anything you post about. You are a complete troll. A total dumbass, a moron. I could go on, but that's enough. I am done with you, idiot.

A car, with a maximum ground speed of 100mph, is on a conveyor running backwards at 100mph. The car stands still, relative to the ground. Correct?

A plane, with a maximum air speed of 100mph, is on a conveyor running backwards at 100mph. The plane moves forward at 100mph, relative to the ground, and becomes airborn. Correct?

Which part of different don't you understand?
Yes, IT DOES BECOME AIRBORNE! WINNAR! The plane's wheels move in the direction that the treadmill pushes them because their motion is SEPARATE from that of the plane. They are on their OWN AXIS. They are not connected to an drive shaft/engine, as on a car. The plane can move forward by pushing on the air even if the wheels are moving in the opposite direction. Of course, the wheels could not move in the opposite direction and have the plane move forward on regular ground. But when the ground moves backwards, the wheels move backwards. But the plane moves forwards. The wheels have to spin, but it does not matter which way they spin. They spin FREELY. They are there to reduce friction with the ground, not to move the airplane. An airplane could potentially take off from a runway on skis, if it were not from the fire that would probably erupt from the enormous friction.
 
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/    |