A plane on a runway, how smart is r3vlimited?

[chucko]

If its a plane, and it loses traction, its usually flying!. omg, whodathunkit :P hahaha Either way, it might be sliding, but that does imply speed and the whole basis of the correct solution.

Nope, it's not flying unless it's moving much faster than the air around it. If it looses traction and it's not moving significantly faster than the air around it it's falling down, not flying.

[tonytony]

it took me a while to get my friend to see that the plane wont take off, he was thinking of it as a car and the wheels providing thrust, and i posted on the mythbusters forum:)

[chucko]

Chucko, I see you're here again. Please look at all of my posts and digest them for a little while before posting your ideas again. You've already back peddled at least once, and the thread has the solution posted in detail as clear as day on the previous page.

Dude, you're cracking me up here. Ok I'll read your posts before I post, but I must say now that you are not referencing belt or plane speed properly when your measuring it relative to the ground. I keep telling you guys the speed must be measured from within the system (belt and wheels). Ok let's say for the sake of argument that you reference speed from a fixed position outside of the moving system and that measured speed is the speed the belt has to move in the opposite direction. Here's what happens:
1) The plane is sitting still on the belt.
2) Pilot in plane turns on jets to position 1(assume he can incrament the force the engine provides)
3) Plane creeps forward to 1 mph (relative to fixed position off the belt)
4) Belt matches the 1mph speed measured from fixed position (because you all say the belt reacts only to the speed of the plane relative to fixed position)
5) Plane starts slowing down (relative to fixed position) because the belt is now moving in opposite direction, so plane is now moving at less than 1 mph (but probably still moving forward due to initial speed before belt kicks in)
6) Since the plane is now moving slower than 1mph, the belt (which is basing its speed on the plane speed from a fixed position) must slow down to say .5 mph (to match the planes percieved reduction in speed).
7) Now the plane begins moving forward faster (say 1mph) because the belt has slowed down (jets still in position 1)
8 ) Now the belt speeds up because the plane has sped up relative to some fixed position.
9 The plane slows down again.......and the process repeats itself
In this scenario the plane is always moving forward and never sits at 0mph relative to fixed position. The plane doesnt reach the speed necessary to lift off. Now what if you did the same thing but put the jet control to position max? Well, lets see:

1) The plane is sitting still on the belt.
2) Pilot in plane turns on jets quickly toward Max position
3) Plane jumps forward to 50mph (relative to fixed position off the belt, assume a time lag for the belt to start)
4) Belt matches the 50mph speed measured from fixed position (because you all say the belt reacts only to the speed of the plane relative to fixed position)
5) Plane continues to accelerate but much slower because as the plane accelerates, the belt accelerates(relative to fixed position)
6) The question here is how fast does the plane continue to accelerate before max thrust is reached? The belt is also accelerating in parallel with the plane. It's difficult to say how much the plane would continue accelerating, my guess is that it would not reach the speed necessary to take off before the runway ended (so it depends on how long the runway is)
Now this scenario assumes you're measuring all speed relative to some fixed point outside of the system. My scenario measures plane speed from within the system, so the plane never even accelerates forward relative to a fixed position because the belt is moving with respect to wheel speed.

Ok now I'll read your other posts. ;-)

[clavinZERO]

this thread is retartedly poopular. wtf mates?

[Justin B]

Ben, read my post again with the examples that you quoted the belt from, the plane must move (and this is relative to the ground, otherwise it is static, while the wheels are just spinning to keep it there and not going backwards), so if you try to tell Erik he's wrong, you're going outside the boundaries of the solution.

Chucko, I see you're here again. Please look at all of my posts and digest them for a little while before posting your ideas, that is if you really still don't believe. That would be hard to "believe" though. Heh, bad pun. You've already back peddled at least once, and the thread has the solution posted in detail as clear as day on the previous page. Not trying to keep you from posting at all, just I don't want to explain the same things over and over again like I did last night when I finally figured a way to break it down to its components on page 16....and even now they're questioned. What is confusing about that? The only non linear, and not-relative to ground speed speed that I listed was the speed of the wheels under the plane to make up the difference between the forward motion and the reverse of the belt. Keep in mind the belt only accelerates at half the rate the plane thinks (or wants to be) it's accelerating in order to allow the plane to move forward in space at the same exact speed the belt is going backwards.

[Justin B]

Um, I guess if you're standing next to the conveyor that I have in that example, on the ground, and it is doing 10mph in relation to you.

A conveyors speed will always be relative to the ground, what is it going to be, a conveyor rolling on top of another conveyor, both at 5mph, so that the one on top is doing 10mph relative to the ground? thats just goofy, belts are always in relation to the ground, the planes speed is in relation to the ground, the wheels are the difference. Conveyor is (-10) while the plane is (10), the wheels are doing 20, to keep them underneath the plane, as is the engine creating the thrust for it to do 20 if resistances are involved. I know this is saying a hell of a lot more than you asked, but they're just along for the ride and get dragged wherever.

[BENdashdash]

Ben, i really hope you are not serious.

Anybody who thinks the plane will not take off simply has not read any of the posts that Justin or I have posted because we have each explained how it works many times now.


Answer me this question:
How is the conveyor belt going to keep the plane stationary? It is not. The jet engines will push the plane forward though the air. The conveyor belt going the opposite direction is simply going to spin the wheels, not hold back the plane.

Ben, I want you to read Brew's example about the missile, and tell me what you think:
"Forget the plane, picture a missile sitting on the same runway with a few casters on it. Someone try and tell me that it wont accelerate, I dare you."

The missile is just like the airplane. It will move forward regardless of any stupid conveyor belts.

-Erik

lol k, ill respond tomorrow when i get time

[BENdashdash]

Mine, and everybody else that knows whats going on :P
Conveyor belt 10mph
Wheels 20mph (plane's thrust thinks its going 20mph)
Plane as a whole in space is only 10mph.
The plane is going at the same speed as the belt. Problem solved.

so you're saying the belt speed is based upon relative ground speed?

[Jand3rson]

I am sick and tired of these motherfuckin planes on this motherfuckin conveyor belt.

[Justin B]

If you dont want it to end, it wont. If you do, it will. You added to it. Thank you! +2 to your credit, my post responding to you full of nothing.

Pretty much /thread anyway aside from just crazyness, I explained it in absolute clear detail on the last page, and throughout the thread in different ways since like page 5. There really isn't many more arguments to add to it not working that haven't been shot down, and the reason it will has been stated, no real more reasoning for it is required either. Believe it or not, this is my 45th post in just this thread alone. Insane.

Edit on the 45th part, its damn close. apparently its only 44 now with a few extra replies, but damn. I checked before this and it was about that too, so who knows. Way too many posts to explain this.

[Erick]

I would add to this, but this wont ever end.

[Justin B]

If its a plane, and it loses traction, its usually flying!. omg, whodathunkit :P hahaha Either way, it might be sliding, but that does imply speed and the whole basis of the correct solution.

[erik325i]

so it loses traction

Ben, i really hope you are not serious.

Anybody who thinks the plane will not take off simply has not read any of the posts that Justin or I have posted because we have each explained how it works many times now.


Answer me this question:
How is the conveyor belt going to keep the plane stationary? It is not. The jet engines will push the plane forward though the air. The conveyor belt going the opposite direction is simply going to spin the wheels, not hold back the plane.

Ben, I want you to read Brew's example about the missile, and tell me what you think:
"Forget the plane, picture a missile sitting on the same runway with a few casters on it. Someone try and tell me that it wont accelerate, I dare you."

The missile is just like the airplane. It will move forward regardless of any stupid conveyor belts.

-Erik

[Justin B]

el oh el. You're grabbing at straws now Ben, admit it. It will not lose traction :P The jet is pushing it, hell, if it loses traction that helps my point, because then there's less rolling resistance.


I proved you wrong in a way that a 5 year old could understand if I used Tonka toys as examples, and seriously no offense, but I hope you're kidding.

[BENdashdash]

so it loses traction