hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

[RobRR]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

Hey Zeeg, I think they are messing with us man! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

After all the examples we've given, Im in utter shock that its still not understood.

[Soap]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

No more dope for you guys. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
While you guys got a good buzz going, see if ya can strategize and implement a plan of action to solve world hunger. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
No genocide. [img]/images/graemlins/nono.gif[/img]

[zeegler]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Zeeg, I think they are messing with us man! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

After all the examples we've given, Im in utter shock that its still not understood.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're right bro. There's no way in hell someone can walk upright, and not understand it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[zeegler]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

[ QUOTE ]
No more dope for you guys. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
While you guys got a good buzz going, see if ya can strategize and implement a plan of action to solve world hunger. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
No genocide. [img]/images/graemlins/nono.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it, I'm going to smoke a bowl. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Number Of The Priest]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

Holy crap, I see it now! It just snapped in my head, like a moment of epiphany where it all came together. Actually, looking back now, my cash register example was similar to Zeegs' treadmill/rope thing, but for some reason I used it to support my side which then became wrong. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Only a CAR would need more "thrust" to overcome the conveyor belt because it's wheel-driven. The plane, on rollerskates, doesn't.

Eeeeeeexcellent.

[hippietim]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

Ok all you brilliant minds:

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

[Newc]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And one thing you guys seem to be forgetting is that the conveyor will always rotate at the same speed as the plane's wheels turn, regardless of whether they are powered or not.

[/ QUOTE ]nope. The original post stated that the conveyor moved at the same speed as the plane, not the wheels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then in that case, the plane will move backwards, because with the conveyor moving in the opposite direction at the same speed of the PLANE (not in which the wheels are turning), the plane, having no rotational ability, will be slung in the opposite direction.
And quite noisily, I might add.

Given the fact that the question did not specifically state whether the plane had wheels or pontoons, nor state if the conveyor was a dry belt or a liquid-covered/fluid-power conveyor, I'm going to accept the statistical standards used to meet expectation (assume) that the conveyor is a dry belt and the plane has wheels.
Given that scenario, the plane's wheels will turn based on forward thrust of the turbines/props. The conveyor will turn in the opposite direction at the same speed as the wheels are turning from the thrust.

AS NOTP said, raise the landing gear and the plane will go forward for just a bit because of the thrust, but will not have enough forward momentum to remain airborne.

Explain to me exactly how/why you think it would?

[Number Of The Priest]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

Is it made out of turds and bullets? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Newc]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

[ QUOTE ]
Ok all you brilliant minds:

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean, African or European?

[Soap]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

[ QUOTE ]
Holy crap, I see it now! It just snapped in my head, like a moment of epiphany where it all came together. Actually, looking back now, my cash register example was similar to Zeegs' treadmill/rope thing, but for some reason I used it to support my side which then became wrong. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Only a CAR would need more "thrust" to overcome the conveyor belt because it's wheel-driven. The plane, on rollerskates, doesn't.

Eeeeeeexcellent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Feeling better?
You should, I clinched my chair and braced myself while reading your post and felt a mild awakening myself. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Number Of The Priest]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

Newc, I totally get where you're coming from, because that's where I came from. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] But imagine an infinite runway that was made out of an infinite conveyor belt. The plane only needs to overcome the conveyor belt by just a tiny little bit in order to start moving forward, unless the belt operator jacked up the belt speed. The plane CAN theoretically take off if it actually starts moving (akin to Zeegs' analogy of pulling yourself forward faster and faster on an infinite treadmill whilst perched atop rollerskates).

[Newc]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

Build this scenario in the real world, and see what happens.
The plane will not lift.

[VinceV]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

LOL, this thread is too much. The plane will not take off. There is no airflow over the wings, plain and simple. You keep confusing enigine thrust with airspeed, not the same thing. Think of it this way, say you get on a treadmill and you are able to crank it up to 50 mph and run at that speed. All of a sudden is the wind blowing in your face like it would if you stuck your head out of a cars window. No, it's because there is no forward motion. The plane has no "airspeed", thats all that matters. Heres a little example that people always think is kinda cool.. Whn I was doing my commercial pilot traing way back in 92. We were doing slowflight practice Slowflight being 5 knots over the stall speed of the plane, in this case around 35 knots in a cessna 172. The air aloft at our altitude was 40knots. We set up for slowflight and guess what, we were actually tracking backwards over the ground., even though the plane was going 35 knots forward indicated. In this treadmill scenario there is no positive airspeed because the plane actually makes no forward momentum. Since it was never allowed to build up speed through a groundroll.

[Number Of The Priest]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

Oh no. I'm starting to see it the other way again. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Great point about the wind blowing in your face at 50mph thing.

Ahhh, I don't know what to believe any more. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[VinceV]

Re: hmmm.... physics question for you guys....

If this treadmill idea worked, I guarantee the military would have devloped and quick install type treadmill device that could be put together rather quickly, so they could have their frontline fighters at the front, instead of spending 100's of millions developing vstol aircraft, i guarantee the treadmill would have been cheaper.