MythBusters

[CorCentral]

I'm sure the idiots of this thread only want the answer to this question because they're wrong and the plane did indeed take off......

At which speed, (500, 1000, 3000mph?) does the conveyor belt have to go, before the bearings in the wheels of the plane fail/lock up and it can't take off :laugh:

Bearings of this calibur are tough little cookies and I figure the number would be fairly high.


SmackDown, you is BusTed on the original Myth :thumbsdown:

 

[JujuFish]

Smack Down, let's say we have a car and a plane of equal mass. Let's say that on a non-moving ground, they both move at the exact same speed when they exert the same force. Now let's put the car on a conveyor belt. It's now exerting a certain amount of force. Let's say the runway is moving in the opposite direction just perfectly to keep the car stationary. What happens to the plane in the same scenario?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: CorCentral
I'm sure the idiots of this thread only want the answer to this question because they're wrong and the plane did indeed take off......

At which speed, (500, 1000, 3000mph?) does the conveyor belt have to go, before the bearings in the wheels of the plane fail/lock up and it can't take off :laugh:

Bearings of this calibur are tough little cookies and I figure the number would be fairly high.


SmackDown, you is BusTed on the original Myth :thumbsdown:

Maybe sometime this week I'll try to plug in some numbers. Wikipedia lists the rolling resistance of a number of heavy objects. I'll dig up my dynamics notes and try to solve this.

A conveyor belt could cause the plane to remain stationary, but as you alluded to, it would have to go very fast in order to have the desired effect.

 

[gsellis]

Vote for locking this thread. The only thing you will further prove is that Collapsium does exist and the only known source is SmackDown's brain.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: JujuFish
Smack Down, let's say we have a car and a plane of equal mass. Let's say that on a non-moving ground, they both move at the exact same speed when they exert the same force. Now let's put the car on a conveyor belt. It's now exerting a certain amount of force. Let's say the runway is moving in the opposite direction just perfectly to keep the car stationary. What happens to the plane in the same scenario?

If the plane and car have the same moment of inertia then the plane will also be stationary. It has to or you are violating the law of conservation of energy.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JujuFish
Smack Down, let's say we have a car and a plane of equal mass. Let's say that on a non-moving ground, they both move at the exact same speed when they exert the same force. Now let's put the car on a conveyor belt. It's now exerting a certain amount of force. Let's say the runway is moving in the opposite direction just perfectly to keep the car stationary. What happens to the plane in the same scenario?

If the plane and car have the same moment of inertia then the plane will also be stationary. It has to or you are violating the law of conservation of energy.

Why are you still here? This is not a closed box. There is no paradox. You just cannot measure or control the force applied by the prop/jet with your control system. Get the F over it and move on.

 

[sandorski]

If Smackdowns brain is put on a Treadmill, can it ever get off?

 

[911paramedic]

I :heart: this thread.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JujuFish
Smack Down, let's say we have a car and a plane of equal mass. Let's say that on a non-moving ground, they both move at the exact same speed when they exert the same force. Now let's put the car on a conveyor belt. It's now exerting a certain amount of force. Let's say the runway is moving in the opposite direction just perfectly to keep the car stationary. What happens to the plane in the same scenario?

If the plane and car have the same moment of inertia then the plane will also be stationary. It has to or you are violating the law of conservation of energy.

LOL

 

[The Boston Dangler]

what if we get a couple engineers to perform the experiment, first in small scale then in full scale, and put the results on national tv? that should provide a definative answer. but then again, the will always be some chuckleheads that maintain the experiment wasn't performed correctly, or their wrong answer would be correct if only the laws of physics were different, or that any decent airplane should have all-wheel-drive or some other lack-of-common-sense, i-have no-freaking-clue-what-i'm-talking-about bullshit.

 

[jimbob200521]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JujuFish
Smack Down, let's say we have a car and a plane of equal mass. Let's say that on a non-moving ground, they both move at the exact same speed when they exert the same force. Now let's put the car on a conveyor belt. It's now exerting a certain amount of force. Let's say the runway is moving in the opposite direction just perfectly to keep the car stationary. What happens to the plane in the same scenario?

If the plane and car have the same moment of inertia then the plane will also be stationary. It has to or you are violating the law of conservation of energy.

Really? Seriously? You do know that they actually did this, and that the plane took off, right? It's not really up for debate anymore because it happened. It took off. The pilot of the plane didn't think that it would take off when they did it, but it did. He was utterly surprised that it did, but again...it did.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: golfercraig
I've been reading this thread for a long time. I check it every few days. Thank you, smack Down, for being so unintentionally funny. I can always count on you for a laugh.

I am not sure it is unintentional. Sounds like trolling to me.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
what if we get a couple engineers to perform the experiment, first in small scale then in full scale, and put the results on national tv? that should provide a definative answer. but then again, the will always be some chuckleheads that maintain the experiment wasn't performed correctly, or their wrong answer would be correct if only the laws of physics were different, or that any decent airplane should have all-wheel-drive or some other lack-of-common-sense, i-have no-freaking-clue-what-i'm-talking-about bullshit.

I gave a hearty LOL at that

 

[nick1985]

I cant believe I missed out on this thread.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: nick1985
I cant believe I missed out on this thread.

How/Why the hell did you revive this thread?

 

[RESmonkey]

So did it take off?

 

[Rastus]

Originally posted by: RESmonkey
So did it take off?

Maybe.

 

[lizardboy]

Originally posted by: RESmonkey
So did it take off?

Yes, took off without a problem.

 

[evident]

so what is the conclusion of this thread? does the plane take off?!

 

[sdifox]

Klaatu. .. Verada. .. Necktie...Nectar...Nickel...It's an "N" word, it's definitely an "N" word

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: evident
so what is the conclusion of this thread? does the plane take off?!

Yes.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

No, I think smackdown proved quite conclusively that the plane doesn't take off. Ironically, the car does, which is why you should never allow terrorists to have cars and treadmills.

 

[imported_apocalypse]

House of the Dead Threads 5

Fun game

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
No, I think smackdown proved quite conclusively that the plane doesn't take off. Ironically, the car does, which is why you should never allow terrorists to have cars and treadmills.

yes. we should ban treadmills. that will protect us and fat people from breaking a sweat.

 

[FoBoT]

they re-ran this episode today, jamie could hardly hide his disgust that they were having to prove the plane takes off

so funny, LOL