you fail at logic. the reason i ignore other peoples points of view is because they are wrong.spray_and_pray wrote:
You yourself are being dumb by spamming a topic and are ignoring other peoples point of view. You FAIL at proper discussion . Keep it nice and responsible or people wont take you seriously.norge wrote:
im gonna keep posting this til everyone actually reads it and stops being dumbnorge wrote:
OKAY PEOPLE LISTEN
1) IF THE PLANE WAS STATIONARY, IT WOULD CREATE NO LIFT (duh)
2) THE WHEELS DONT PROVIDE THRUST(duh)
3) Since the wheels are freefloating, the treadmill will pass under the plane freely. (minimal friction)
4) the jet engines will provide thrust to counteract the minimal friction, and then once that has been passed it will provide forward movement.
5) the plane will then accelerate, and take off.
anyone that thinks the planes momentum is caused by the wheels is a fucking retard and needs to be banned asap.
If the treadmill matches the speed of the plane exactly in the opposite direction, the plane will have a relative speed of 400mph at take off, 200mph relative to anything stationary.iHoudini wrote:
The jet engines are what causes the plane to thrust forward. As said in the question, if the treadmill matches the speed of the plane exactly in the opposite direction, the plane will be stationary relative to the ground.
..if we assume that the needed speed for take off would be 200mph
Last edited by DonFck (2006-12-29 02:32:20)
I need around tree fiddy.
QFTnorge wrote:
im gonna keep posting this til everyone actually reads it and stops being dumbnorge wrote:
OKAY PEOPLE LISTEN
1) IF THE PLANE WAS STATIONARY, IT WOULD CREATE NO LIFT (duh)
2) THE WHEELS DONT PROVIDE THRUST(duh)
3) Since the wheels are freefloating, the treadmill will pass under the plane freely. (minimal friction)
4) the jet engines will provide thrust to counteract the minimal friction, and then once that has been passed it will provide forward movement.
5) the plane will then accelerate, and take off.
anyone that thinks the planes momentum is caused by the wheels is a fucking retard and needs to be banned asap.
oh my god...Coolbeano wrote:
Yes, my point is that the point is that the plane doesn't move, so it might as well be 'would a plane on a tomato generate any lift'. Of course a very heavy, large tomato strong enough to keep the plane in place.<<<FTDM>>>Gen.Raven wrote:
tomato?Coolbeano wrote:
Jesus christ 5 pages in this damn thread? (high pagination, anything over 1 page is incredulous)
ATG, correct me if I'm wrong, but:
http://img4.picsplace.to/img4/27/staionary.GIF
http://img4.picsplace.to/img4/27/TOMATo.GIF
I think you just lost the right to reply to this thread!
the treadmill is NOT keeping the plane in place, it is trying to counter the forward momentum.
there is a BIG difference between ANCHORING the plane, and what ATG has described.
An anchored plane will of course NOT move, and thus not generate lift (assuming the anchor is strong enough)
but, the treadmill isn't an ANCHOR, its the floor..
Think about it this way, would a jet take off if it's runway was entirely covered in marbles? yes.. of course it would...and for exactly the same reason it will if it's a treadmill!
As for those people who keep trying to compare this to a plane on water - please stop it... it's totally different and here's why:
The pontoons on a water plane are at LEAST one metre long, at least 20cm wide and sink at least 20cm into the water. There is also at least TWO of them.
AS I can't be arsed to do the math, lets just say the surface area they occupy in the water is quite large ok?
Right.. on a 747, it has ten tyres all touching the ground. four under each wing and two at the front.
Again, I'm not going to do the math, but I'd imagine the surface area of those tyres combined is probably the same as the water plane metioned above.
Great - so this means they're the same right?
WRONGDIDDLYWRONG WRONG WRONG!
the major difference, the difference that makes the comparision 100% useless, is that the wheels on the jet ROTATE as the ground beneath them moves.
But why does this matter?
Well, a water plane's pontoons provide PERMENANT RESISTANCE within the water... a constant force for the water to push against, as the surface area the water is pushing against stays in the water, allowing the flow to continue to push against it.. allowing it to be pushed backwards.
Now, a normal, land plane's wheels dont provide PERMENANT RESISTANCE. when something pushes against them, the surface area is allowed to ROTATE away from the pressure, thanks to the wheel's axle.
A NEW section of surface area is then exposed to the pressure, but that too is allowed to move away by rotation.
Because of this, the force being applied to the wheels cannot "mount up" and will never be more than the jet thrust being generated...
this then obviously means the jet WILL move forward.
I thought about this last night and came up with yet another good example...
if you stick a normal car on a rolling road and drive it, the wheels will spin, and the rolling road will spin up to match.
Although the car will be pulling forward slightly (because the rolling road isn't "powered", so cant match the car wheel speed 100% - it's always going to be slightly slower, or creating slight friction), it cant drive off the rolling road - it'll sit there.
Now, if you did the same thing with a jet-powered car - what would happen?
The car would pull hard at it's restraints, trying to move forward, but it's wheels would not turn, as they are n ot driven by the jet engine.
At that point, you could easily turn the rolling road rollers either forward or backward, with very little effort
As you turn it backwards, the car's wheels would also rotate, but you'll find the jet car will still be pulling forward on it's restraints.
this is because the wheels have absolutely no bearing on the thrust / drag ratio being generated by the jet engine.
and this is true if the car was a plane on a treadmill, with no restraints.... it'd move forward!
Perhaps.Coolbeano wrote:
Jesus christ 5 pages in this damn thread? (high pagination, anything over 1 page is incredulous)
ATG, correct me if I'm wrong, but:
http://img4.picsplace.to/img4/27/staionary.GIF
http://img4.picsplace.to/img4/27/TOMATo.GIF
No, it will not take off. No wind resistance.
A plane cannot take off by only spinning its wheels. lol 16 pages and some people still dont seem to get this.
QFTarson wrote:
A plane cannot take off by only spinning its wheels. lol 16 pages and some people still dont seem to get this.
You need a shitload of windflow over and under the wings.
Another guy that hasnt read the topic and by his senseless argument, makes us come back to the beginning.usmarine2007 wrote:
QFTarson wrote:
A plane cannot take off by only spinning its wheels. lol 16 pages and some people still dont seem to get this.
You need a shitload of windflow over and under the wings.
Read this : http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthr … =treadmill
And post #357 by DrunkFace
You cannot prove they are wrong what you are saying is only theoretical and not a fact it is not solid evidence drawing up a diagram. Such an experiment would have to include a real life aircraft and over a few hundred tests with different variables. You failed at science? And at making me fail.norge wrote:
you fail at logic. the reason i ignore other peoples points of view is because they are wrong.spray_and_pray wrote:
You yourself are being dumb by spamming a topic and are ignoring other peoples point of view. You FAIL at proper discussion . Keep it nice and responsible or people wont take you seriously.norge wrote:
im gonna keep posting this til everyone actually reads it and stops being dumb
norge wrote:
OKAY PEOPLE LISTEN
1) IF THE PLANE WAS STATIONARY, IT WOULD CREATE NO LIFT (duh)
2) THE WHEELS DONT PROVIDE THRUST(duh)
3) Since the wheels are freefloating, the treadmill will pass under the plane freely. (minimal friction)
4) the jet engines will provide thrust to counteract the minimal friction, and then once that has been passed it will provide forward movement.
5) the plane will then accelerate, and take off.
anyone that thinks the planes momentum is caused by the wheels is a fucking retard and needs to be banned asap.
another failure at basic reading comprehension properly demonstrated GG-=raska=- wrote:
Another guy that hasnt read the topic and by his senseless argument, makes us come back to the beginning.usmarine2007 wrote:
QFTarson wrote:
A plane cannot take off by only spinning its wheels. lol 16 pages and some people still dont seem to get this.
You need a shitload of windflow over and under the wings.
Read this : http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthr … =treadmill
And post #357 by DrunkFace
A plane is standing on a runway that can move (like a giant conveyor
belt). This conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane's
speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but
in the opposite direction).
"a plane STANDING on a runway" not MOVING on a runway....
If a plane is "standing " how fast is it's speed? Here is an example for you to try in the safety of your own home..
stand up and see how fast your forward speed is...
never said it was moving so no plane stays standing!!arson wrote:
another failure at basic reading comprehension properly demonstrated GG-=raska=- wrote:
Another guy that hasnt read the topic and by his senseless argument, makes us come back to the beginning.usmarine2007 wrote:
QFT
You need a shitload of windflow over and under the wings.
Read this : http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthr … =treadmill
And post #357 by DrunkFace
A plane is standing on a runway that can move (like a giant conveyor
belt). This conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane's
speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but
in the opposite direction).
"a plane STANDING on a runway" not MOVING on a runway....
If a plane is "standing " how fast is it's speed? Here is an example for you to try in the safety of your own home..
stand up and see how fast your forward speed is...
Lol so.......this was a trick question and the plane wouldn't take off at all? Damn if thats the case, we all got owned. Fuck.arson wrote:
another failure at basic reading comprehension properly demonstrated GG-=raska=- wrote:
Another guy that hasnt read the topic and by his senseless argument, makes us come back to the beginning.usmarine2007 wrote:
QFT
You need a shitload of windflow over and under the wings.
Read this : http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthr … =treadmill
And post #357 by DrunkFace
A plane is standing on a runway that can move (like a giant conveyor
belt). This conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane's
speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but
in the opposite direction).
"a plane STANDING on a runway" not MOVING on a runway....
If a plane is "standing " how fast is it's speed? Here is an example for you to try in the safety of your own home..
stand up and see how fast your forward speed is...
I came up with a test in my sleep but have no treadmill, you need, a scale and something with wheels to stand on, and a piece of rope. stand on something with wheels holding onto rope, rope is attached to scale which will indicate the force used to keep you on the treadmill, now increase the speed of the treadmill, and see if the weight on the scale changes, did it increase tenfold when your speed increased by ten???? if not than the wheels are absorbing the speed of the treadmill, and seeings how a planes propulsion is independant of its wheels, the plane would take off on a normal sized runway
Last edited by Locoloki (2006-12-29 09:18:15)
Alright guys:
The only thing that will happen is that the wheels will move twice as fast as the plane itself, this is because the treadmill moves at the same speed in the opposite direction.
The jet engine will move forward and take off when the airflow under the wings is strong enough to lift the plane. This is because the plane is not stationary, and the speed of the wheels have nothing to say in this.
Am i right?
The only thing that will happen is that the wheels will move twice as fast as the plane itself, this is because the treadmill moves at the same speed in the opposite direction.
The jet engine will move forward and take off when the airflow under the wings is strong enough to lift the plane. This is because the plane is not stationary, and the speed of the wheels have nothing to say in this.
Am i right?
correctKrauser98 wrote:
Yes! Yes it would! You're all wrong!!! The treadmill would have no effect on the plane because it is being pushed / pulled by a jet / propeller! It's not a car! The wheels are not what makes it go, thus the plane would go right off the end of the treadmill with little to no difference. (Until the wings hit the handlebars on the treadmill that is.) As normal, the air would be flowing under the wings, because the plane would be moving forward. If the plane were powered by it's wheels it would only be able to fly short distances and would be more of a jumping car than an airplane. My answer is a solid Yes, the plane would still take off!
Last edited by Fredrik (2006-12-29 09:38:51)
Anyone else think this is something the Mythbusters should test?d3athwi5h4 wrote:
No, the plane being stationary wouldn't create any lift
Last edited by SoC./Omega (2006-12-29 09:35:16)
Actually, all you need is a treadmill and a pair of rollerblades:Locoloki wrote:
I came up with a test in my sleep but have no treadmill, you need, a scale and something with wheels to stand on, and a piece of rope. stand on something with wheels holding onto rope, rope is attached to scale which will indicate the force used to keep you on the treadmill, now increase the speed of the treadmill, and see if the weight on the scale changes, did it increase tenfold when your speed increased by ten???? if not than the wheels are absorbing the speed of the treadmill, and seeings how a planes propulsion is independant of its wheels, the plane would take off on a normal sized runway
1 - Put rollerblades on and stand on a treadmill, holding on to the handle bars.
2 - Turn the treadmill on, increase the speed to max. Whats keeping you from falling off the treadmill are your hands holding on to the handlebar, right? Your hands are doing the job of the turbines, to keep from falling off the treadmill the pilot would put enough power to stay stationary on the treadmill.
3 - Pull yourself foward on the treadmill. The force you are having to make to go further on the treadmill is what the pilot on the plane would do, by increasing the throtle on the turbines.
So, for the plane to takeoff all it has to do is beat the friction of the wheels like the person on the treadmill did when he pulled on the handlebars.
What is going to happen is that while the plane is at some 200MPh (for example) relative to the ground (not the treadmill), its wheels are spinning at a much higher speed due to the treadmill. The only for the treadmill to stop the plane from taking of is to spin so fast the tires on the plane blow before it takes off.
PS.: All this has been said already, including the treadmill/rollerblade exercise.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
PERHAPS?! that's all you can say?!ATG wrote:
Perhaps.Coolbeano wrote:
Jesus christ 5 pages in this damn thread? (high pagination, anything over 1 page is incredulous)
ATG, correct me if I'm wrong, but:
http://img4.picsplace.to/img4/27/staionary.GIF
http://img4.picsplace.to/img4/27/TOMATo.GIF
not even a lol or something eh haha
QFT[RFW]Xenomorph wrote:
QFTnorge wrote:
im gonna keep posting this til everyone actually reads it and stops being dumbnorge wrote:
OKAY PEOPLE LISTEN
1) IF THE PLANE WAS STATIONARY, IT WOULD CREATE NO LIFT (duh)
2) THE WHEELS DONT PROVIDE THRUST(duh)
3) Since the wheels are freefloating, the treadmill will pass under the plane freely. (minimal friction)
4) the jet engines will provide thrust to counteract the minimal friction, and then once that has been passed it will provide forward movement.
5) the plane will then accelerate, and take off.
anyone that thinks the planes momentum is caused by the wheels is a fucking retard and needs to be banned asap.
The key to this is the fact that the wheels are FREE FLOATING
The wheels do not power the plane.
Imagine this....
You are holding onto the handles of the treadmill, and hovering yourself above the treadmill, allowing your feet to drag along the treadmill.
The wheels are your feet. They are getting dragged back by the treadmill, but because it is your amrs that are keeping you stationary, you do not get dragged backwards.
The same applies to the plane.
Therefore, the plane is staying at the same place, so you only need the jet engines to power, and allow the plane to take off.
-------------------------------------
The situation is that the treadmill is trying to pull the plane back at the same speed it is going forwards.
However, since the wheels are freefloating, the treadmill is not pulling the plane back, merely rotating the wheels.
The jet engines do not care what is happening with the treadmill and the wheels, as the plane is still stationary, because of this the jet engines power up and the plane takes off
-----------------------------------
If you still do not understand, try and think about it like this
The treadmill and the wheels are counterating each other so the plane doesn't move.
Understand?
Now, if you add an addional force moving the plane forwards, that is in no way connected to the treadmill or the wheels, then the forces are no longer equal, so moving the plane forwards.
What? The engines give the airplane speed which creates windflow over and under the wing. The wheels are what make it go. This is not a rocket we are talking about. Without the wheels you would not be able to get enough airspeed to generate enough airflow over the wings to create lift.Fredrik wrote:
Alright guys:
The only thing that will happen is that the wheels will move twice as fast as the plane itself, this is because the treadmill moves at the same speed in the opposite direction.
The jet engine will move forward and take off when the airflow under the wings is strong enough to lift the plane. This is because the plane is not stationary, and the speed of the wheels have nothing to say in this.
Am i right?correctKrauser98 wrote:
Yes! Yes it would! You're all wrong!!! The treadmill would have no effect on the plane because it is being pushed / pulled by a jet / propeller! It's not a car! The wheels are not what makes it go, thus the plane would go right off the end of the treadmill with little to no difference. (Until the wings hit the handlebars on the treadmill that is.) As normal, the air would be flowing under the wings, because the plane would be moving forward. If the plane were powered by it's wheels it would only be able to fly short distances and would be more of a jumping car than an airplane. My answer is a solid Yes, the plane would still take off!
A planes engine is not connected to its wheels, the plane is going to get airflow under its wings by taking off as it normally does, with the wheels spinning twice as fast
*edit
yes i originally posted that the plane wouldnt fly, but then i came to my senses
*edit
yes i originally posted that the plane wouldnt fly, but then i came to my senses
Last edited by Locoloki (2006-12-29 10:19:54)
Dude, the wheels allow it to roll. That's it.Lt Dan's Legs wrote:
The wheels are what make it go.
I need around tree fiddy.
I know the engine is not connected to the wheels.Locoloki wrote:
A planes engine is not connected to its wheels, the plane is going to get airflow under its wings by taking off as it normally does, with the wheels spinning twice as fast
I know that.DonFck wrote:
Dude, the wheels allow it to roll. That's it.Lt Dan's Legs wrote:
The wheels are what make it go.