|
It is currently Thu Nov 12, 2026 7:50 pm
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
 |
|
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
|
73Delta88
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:54 pm |
| TOC Moderator |
 |
 |
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2003 12:28 am Posts: 1020 Images: 14 Location: Western Massachusetts
|
88delta88 wrote: Well now... Whos going to test this theory out? Try that exact same situation with a truck now pulling a glider. The only source of engergy is the truck, accelerating down the tarmac, using the tarmac to pull the load along.
The glider, will start to be pulled down the conveyor belt, and the wheels will be turning like crazy. No lift will be created by the glider, because the air sits still over the wings. NOW the situation works as C_Creations had once theorized. I think this thing that Brando posted earlier explains it pretty clearly: AVweb.com wrote: Conveyer-Belt Runway What I learned from Old Hack was that an updated version of a question aimed at confusing folks over relative measurements of airplane motion and the medium in which it operates had shown up on the Internet, and it was causing the fracas in the Lounge.
The question that has been going around is not particularly artfully worded, and I think that has caused some of the disagreements, but I'll repeat it as it is shown: "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?"
My comment: Notice that the question does not state that the conveyor's movement keeps the airplane over the starting position relative to the ground, just that it moves in the direction opposite to any movement of the airplane.
Initially, about a third of the folks here said that the airplane could not ever takeoff, because the conveyor would overcome the speed of the airplane and it could never get any airspeed. The rest said the airplane would fly.
The "It won't fly, Rocky" group said that the conveyor would hold back the airplane. They asked us to imagine a person running on a treadmill. As he or she sped up, the treadmill would be programmed to speed up, just as the conveyor in the problem, and the person would remain over the same locus on the earth, while running as fast as possible.
The argument was that if the airplane started to move forward, the conveyor program was set up to move the conveyor at exactly that speed, in the opposite direction, thus, the airplane would never move relative to the ground, and, because the air was calm, it could never get any wind over its wings. One of the analogies presented was the person rowing at three mph upstream in a river on a calm day. However, the current was flowing downstream at three mph, so the resultant speed with reference to the stream bank and air was zero, and thus there was no wind on the rowboat.
I watched and listened to the disagreement for a while and was fascinated to see that the argument seemed to split between those who had some engineering or math background, all of whom said the airplane would takeoff and fly without any problem; and those with some other background, who visualized the airplane as having to push against the conveyor in order to gain speed. Because the conveyor equaled the airplane's push against the conveyor, the airplane stayed in one place over the ground and in the calm air could not get any airspeed and fly.
It was an interesting argument, but as things progressed, more rational heads prevailed, pointing out that the airplanes do not apply their thrust via their wheels, so the conveyor belt is irrelevant to whether the airplane will takeoff. One guy even got one of those rubber band powered wood and plastic airplane that sell for about a buck, put it on the treadmill someone foolishly donated to the Lounge years ago, thinking that pilots might actually exercise. He wound up the rubber band, set the treadmill to be level, and at its highest speed. Then he simultaneously set the airplane on the treadmill and let the prop start to turn. It took off without moving the slightest bit backwards.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
88delta88
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:54 pm |
| TOC Village Idiot |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 5:06 pm Posts: 2415 Images: 40 Location: Canada
|
|
hahaha!!! 73delta... you hit it on the head.
_________________ "I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
http://www.cardomain.com/id/88delta88
|
|
|
|
 |
|
88 Coupe
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:25 pm |
| TOC Member |
 |
 |
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:25 am Posts: 3196 Images: 10 Location: Southern California
|
Hello everyone,
Anyone who did not understand the the problem and see the answer in less than 5 seconds, cannot claim to be a serious gearhead.
I was waiting for someone to explain how the conveyor belt would affect the operation of the aircraft. Guess that won't happen, since the question was taken as a serious one, and the link to the explanation was posted before the fun began.
2ROCKETS73 wrote: ........ could someone (without clouding the waters with wheel spin and such) just explain whether the plane is standing still on the conveyor (we are assuming a conveyor could turn fast enough) or if the plane is moving down the conveyor? ........
The conveyor is a "red herring".
Regards, Norm
_________________ Harry S. Truman wrote: When you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
88 Coupe
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:34 pm |
| TOC Member |
 |
 |
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:25 am Posts: 3196 Images: 10 Location: Southern California
|
73Delta88 wrote: ........ Now I know how Norm must feel sometimes
Welcome to the club.
_________________ Harry S. Truman wrote: When you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
c_creations
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:07 am |
| TOC Member |
 |
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:32 pm Posts: 205 Location: south dakota: SALTY ROAD CAPITAL :(
|
|
the conveyor might slow the acceleration of the aircraft down due to bearing friction in the wheels, but other than that wouldnt affect the aircraft at all. push the throttle forward and away the jet goes, simple as that.
_________________ Josh Egeberg
CCC
Check out My Ride @ http://members.sounddomain.com/je88royal
|
|
|
|
 |
|
c_creations
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:12 am |
| TOC Member |
 |
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:32 pm Posts: 205 Location: south dakota: SALTY ROAD CAPITAL :(
|
|
to add to my last post, even if the conveyor went faster backwards it still would not stop the thrust comming out of the jet engines, the wheels would just respectivly speed up, you most likely wouldnt even notice it in the cockpit unless a tire blew.
off topic, something funny, if everyone was asleep in the jet, and the pilot executed a perfect barrel roll, no one would notice, no one would budge, no drinks would spill nothing. my dad has started to do it when he flew in vietnam, got it so people would be sitting on one side of the plane and when they looked up all they could see was ground out the opposite window. all they noticed is what they saw, not what they felt. God Bless gravity!
_________________ Josh Egeberg
CCC
Check out My Ride @ http://members.sounddomain.com/je88royal
|
|
|
|
 |
|
88delta88
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:43 am |
| TOC Village Idiot |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 5:06 pm Posts: 2415 Images: 40 Location: Canada
|
 all in the name of fun...
_________________ "I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
http://www.cardomain.com/id/88delta88
|
|
|
|
 |
|
88 Coupe
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:34 pm |
| TOC Member |
 |
 |
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:25 am Posts: 3196 Images: 10 Location: Southern California
|
Hi 2ROCKETS73, all,
Quote: ........ OK, so I've crashed and burned........ The glass is half full, not half empty. You participated in a discussion and learned from the experience. If you had not asked the question, you (and an unknown number of lurkers) wouldn't have the answer. It's what message boards are all about. Quote: ........ I never claimed to be a "serious gearhead" ........ No one said anyone was or wasn't, and I don't believe anyone cares if you are or not. Please reread my post. 88 Coupe wrote: Anyone who did not understand the the problem and see the answer in less than 5 seconds, cannot claim to be a serious gearhead.
I was waiting for someone to explain how the conveyor belt would affect the operation of the aircraft. Guess that won't happen, since the question was taken as a serious one, and the link to the explanation was posted before the fun began. First, were the opening comments to everyone. 88 Coupe wrote: 2ROCKETS73 wrote: ........ could someone (without clouding the waters with wheel spin and such) just explain whether the plane is standing still on the conveyor (we are assuming a conveyor could turn fast enough) or if the plane is moving down the conveyor? ........ The conveyor is a "red herring". Then, the answer to your question. 88 Coupe wrote: 73Delta88 wrote: ........ Now I know how Norm must feel sometimes. Welcome to the club. The reference is not to the intelligence of the student, but to the the teachers frustration at not being able to properly communicate the information. Quote: ........ Maybe "I'm done" too.
Your loss.
Regards, Norm
_________________ Harry S. Truman wrote: When you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
andrewk
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:25 am |
| TOC Moderator |
 |
 |
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 5:42 pm Posts: 1297 Images: 2 Location: Ames, IA
|
Hello all,
I havent had the chance to get on the oard lately... Ill explain my theory. The plane would take off. The reason it would take off is because since the plane flys because of a pressure differential it would still take off becuase the jet engine would create that pressure differential. This is Bernoulis principle at its finest. Heres another way to think about it. A jet is a big vaccum cleaner with a smaller end on the outlet than the inlet. As its sucking the air it is also aiding the pressure differential required for the plane to fly. So even though the coveyor is moving the oppisite direction, the plane would fly. In this case, wheel speed is irrevelant because airplanes are not powered by the wheels as was stated earlier. Now that I stirred the shit, lets see what happens... 
_________________ Andrew
TOC Moderator
Mark Twain wrote: A man's character may be learned from the adjectives which he habitually uses in conversation.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|