Be Excellent To Each Other

And, you know, party on. Dude.

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Reply to topic  [ 200 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:39 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
Lave wrote:
Quote:
If the wheel travels forwards 1m in 1 second, and the belt travels backwards 1m during this time, then the length of belt touched by the wheel is 2m.


Hmm, ok, I think I'm working out the difference between us. I proposing that a wheel of 1m circumference rotated once, then it would cover 1m of the surface it was rolling across if it did not slip across that surface. (perfect traction or whatever). In that situation the wheel and belt could reach a balance due to the plane taking off above them. And so the situation is unphysical and they would melt/not exist.


Can you stop proposing that then please, because it is even more nonsensical than the original question, has nothing to do with that, and is going to confuse people :)

In fact, would you mind getting a rollerskate or something, put some paint on one of the wheels and roll it forwards one meter on sheet of a newspaper, whilst pulling the newspaper backwards by one meter? Nothing will explode or melt, except for me if you keep on about this :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:40 
User avatar
Isn't that lovely?

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 10910
Location: Devon
kalmar wrote:
Malc: The force propelling it forward is the engine. The only opposing force (over the normal case) is the very minor one I've mentioned, the increase in rolling resistance and bearing drag. It has to accelerate.


so you're saying that as the plane goes faster, the wheels do not (which is also what I think Lave is alluding to as well)? If that's the case then fine, the plane takes off. But is it the case? Why would the plane be travelling faster than the wheels? I presume they must be designed to hadle at least twice the normal speed of use...

Malc

_________________
Where's the Kaboom? I was expecting an Earth shattering Kaboom!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:43 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
Spinglo Sponglo! wrote:
kalmar wrote:
Malc: The force propelling it forward is the engine. The only opposing force (over the normal case) is the very minor one I've mentioned, the increase in rolling resistance and bearing drag. It has to accelerate.


so you're saying that as the plane goes faster, the wheels do not (which is also what I think Lave is alluding to as well)?

Definitely, definitely, definitely not :)

Quote:
If that's the case then fine, the plane takes off. But is it the case? Why would the plane be travelling faster than the wheels?


It wouldn't. The wheels move at the same speed as the plane, they are kind of attached to it. However, they will rotate at twice the normal velocity for any given forward speed of the plane, if the "runway" is also moving backwards as described.

That's all there is to it.

(is this a wind-up or something? SUSPICIOUS FACE)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:47 
User avatar
I forgot about this - how vain

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 5979
kalmar wrote:
Lave wrote:
Quote:
If the wheel travels forwards 1m in 1 second, and the belt travels backwards 1m during this time, then the length of belt touched by the wheel is 2m.


Hmm, ok, I think I'm working out the difference between us. I proposing that a wheel of 1m circumference rotated once, then it would cover 1m of the surface it was rolling across if it did not slip across that surface. (perfect traction or whatever). In that situation the wheel and belt could reach a balance due to the plane taking off above them. And so the situation is unphysical and they would melt/not exist.


Can you stop proposing that then please, because it is even more nonsensical than the original question, has nothing to do with that, and is going to confuse people :)

In fact, would you mind getting a rollerskate or something, put some paint on one of the wheels and roll it forwards one meter on sheet of a newspaper, whilst pulling the newspaper backwards by one meter? Nothing will explode or melt, except for me if you keep on about this :)


Ah yes, but will the the ink particles be half as densely populated? Ey?

I'm just bringing it up because thats a typical assumption in Physics for the vast amount of theory questions we do. I suspect your from a different background and treating the wheel differently, I think thats interesting so I bugged you about it.

_________________
Curiosity wrote:
The Rev Owen wrote:
Is there a way to summon lave?

Faith schools, scientologists and 2-D platform games.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:49 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
Lave wrote:
kalmar wrote:
Lave wrote:
Quote:
If the wheel travels forwards 1m in 1 second, and the belt travels backwards 1m during this time, then the length of belt touched by the wheel is 2m.


Hmm, ok, I think I'm working out the difference between us. I proposing that a wheel of 1m circumference rotated once, then it would cover 1m of the surface it was rolling across if it did not slip across that surface. (perfect traction or whatever). In that situation the wheel and belt could reach a balance due to the plane taking off above them. And so the situation is unphysical and they would melt/not exist.


Can you stop proposing that then please, because it is even more nonsensical than the original question, has nothing to do with that, and is going to confuse people :)

In fact, would you mind getting a rollerskate or something, put some paint on one of the wheels and roll it forwards one meter on sheet of a newspaper, whilst pulling the newspaper backwards by one meter? Nothing will explode or melt, except for me if you keep on about this :)


Ah yes, but will the the ink particles be half as densely populated? Ey?

I'm just bringing it up because thats a typical assumption in Physics for the vast amount of theory questions we do. I suspect your from a different background and treating the wheel differently, I think thats interesting so I bugged you about it.


MR ENGINEERING IS THE ONE TRUE WAY FACE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:50 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
As a break from the monotony:


_________________
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Pretty much everyone agrees with Gnomes, really, it's just some are too right on to admit it. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:52 
User avatar
Isn't that lovely?

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 10910
Location: Devon
kalmar wrote:
Spinglo Sponglo! wrote:
kalmar wrote:
Malc: The force propelling it forward is the engine. The only opposing force (over the normal case) is the very minor one I've mentioned, the increase in rolling resistance and bearing drag. It has to accelerate.


so you're saying that as the plane goes faster, the wheels do not (which is also what I think Lave is alluding to as well)?

Definitely, definitely, definitely not :)

Quote:
If that's the case then fine, the plane takes off. But is it the case? Why would the plane be travelling faster than the wheels?


It wouldn't. The wheels move at the same speed as the plane, they are kind of attached to it. However, they will rotate at twice the normal velocity for any given forward speed of the plane, if the "runway" is also moving backwards as described.

That's all there is to it.

(is this a wind-up or something? SUSPICIOUS FACE)


No wind up.

So let me get this straight:

The plane and the wheels are travelling at the same speed from left to right?
The treadmill is travelling at the same speed but from right to left?

If that is the case, then I repeat my assertation, where is the net accelleration? where is the net force?

If that isn't the case what am I missing?

Malc

_________________
Where's the Kaboom? I was expecting an Earth shattering Kaboom!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:53 
User avatar
I forgot about this - how vain

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 5979
MR PHYSICS MAKES ATOM BOMBS ENGERBORING MAKES SKODAS FACE.

_________________
Curiosity wrote:
The Rev Owen wrote:
Is there a way to summon lave?

Faith schools, scientologists and 2-D platform games.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:58 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 1143
Location: Manchester, UK
kalmar wrote:
Lave wrote:
Quote:
If the wheel travels forwards 1m in 1 second, and the belt travels backwards 1m during this time, then the length of belt touched by the wheel is 2m.


Hmm, ok, I think I'm working out the difference between us. I proposing that a wheel of 1m circumference rotated once, then it would cover 1m of the surface it was rolling across if it did not slip across that surface. (perfect traction or whatever). In that situation the wheel and belt could reach a balance due to the plane taking off above them. And so the situation is unphysical and they would melt/not exist.


Can you stop proposing that then please, because it is even more nonsensical than the original question, has nothing to do with that, and is going to confuse people :)


You reckon this is all that is gonna confuse people within this thread :shock:

Have a fun weekend arguing guys, I'll laugh at this on Monday morning at work!

E at A Level Physics pupil, signing out!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:59 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
Spinglo Sponglo! wrote:
kalmar wrote:
Spinglo Sponglo! wrote:
kalmar wrote:
Malc: The force propelling it forward is the engine. The only opposing force (over the normal case) is the very minor one I've mentioned, the increase in rolling resistance and bearing drag. It has to accelerate.


so you're saying that as the plane goes faster, the wheels do not (which is also what I think Lave is alluding to as well)?

Definitely, definitely, definitely not :)

Quote:
If that's the case then fine, the plane takes off. But is it the case? Why would the plane be travelling faster than the wheels?


It wouldn't. The wheels move at the same speed as the plane, they are kind of attached to it. However, they will rotate at twice the normal velocity for any given forward speed of the plane, if the "runway" is also moving backwards as described.

That's all there is to it.

(is this a wind-up or something? SUSPICIOUS FACE)


No wind up.

So let me get this straight:

The plane and the wheels are travelling at the same speed from left to right?
The treadmill is travelling at the same speed but from right to left?


The surface of the treadmill is travelling from right to left, but has no noticeable effect on the motion of the plane, which is still travelling from left to right at its normal speed.

If the plane moves forwards at 10mph, the treadmill moves backwards at 10mph. But the plane still moves forwards at 10mph.

Quote:
If that is the case, then I repeat my assertation, where is the net accelleration? where is the net force?

I repeat that the force propelling it from the left is the jet engine acting on the air behind it, as usual (simplified, but acceptable for this). And the treadmill acts on the plane only indirectly via the rolling resistance of the tyres and other minor effects.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 18:20 
User avatar
Isn't that lovely?

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 10910
Location: Devon
OK, I think I've got this now. Or rather I thought I did, No I do, I think what I need is some actual numbers. What Force can a Jumbo's engines provide? What Force is the resistance of a wheel on a treadmill?

Malc

_________________
Where's the Kaboom? I was expecting an Earth shattering Kaboom!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 18:33 
User avatar
Rude Belittler

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 5016
I can't believe so many people get this wrong. This topic was banned over at the Mythbusters forums, because people kept arguing that a plane on a treadmill can't take off. Despite actual evidence that it can. Because they did it.

You might as well say 'can a plane fly along a treadmill running in the opposite direction?'. The only force the wheels exert on the plane is the friction of their bearings. It doesn't matter how fast you run that treadmill, as long as the wheels can take the stress.

If the treadmill was directly working against the planes body, in some way, then it wouldn't be able to take off, but the wheels are basically bearings, designed to allow the plane and surfaces it interacts with to move freely against each other. If they didn't do that, and there was enough friction generated by their turning to significantly act against the thousands of pounds of thrust jet engines produce, then you wouldn't be able to land any planes. That friction would cause them to be ripped off as soon as they touch the runway.

Here's another example. Take a rear-wheel drive car. Put the front wheels on a treadmill, and spin them up to 200mph, in reverse. Get in car, put it in reverse, then press on the accelerator. What happens? You'll probably wreck the front tyres as you reverse them off the treadmill, and they hit the stationary floor at 200mph. (the car won't go off at 200 mph, because the front wheels aren't being driven)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 19:00 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
Spinglo Sponglo! wrote:
OK, I think I've got this now. Or rather I thought I did, No I do, I think what I need is some actual numbers. What Force can a Jumbo's engines provide? What Force is the resistance of a wheel on a treadmill?

Malc


Here's what I wrote for the other thread:
me wrote:
Let's see, a 747's engines can produce about 100,000 pound-foot of force. That's about 500,000N. (round numbers here).


You can work out for yourself the rolling resistance, but you'll have to find the coefficient for the tyres used first.
Hint: it's bugger-all, relatively speaking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 19:35 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 5924
Location: Stockport - The Jewel in the Ring
Heh. I done a poo.

_________________
Mint To Be Stationery - Looking for a Secret Santa gift? Try our online shops at Mint To Be.

Book me in the Face | Tweet me. Tweet me like a British nanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 19:47 
User avatar
MR EXCELLENT FACE

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 2568
I just did a poo, too! It was a very days in the making MR SADE FACE But I did it! MR HAPPY FACE

myoptika wrote:
MrD wrote:
myoptika wrote:
What about if there was 1G of centrifugal force affecting the plane's wings in the bipolar direction? Then there'd be a case for it not being able to take off.

It would topple to the side.


DON'T BE AN IDIOT. There's no such thing as a centrifugal force.

WRONG!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuga ... onceptions

_________________
This man is bound by law to clear the snow away


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 19:54 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
I no longer want to be king of the subeds, on the basis that you are a bunch of



COMPLETE DULLARDS.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 20:07 
User avatar
MR EXCELLENT FACE

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 2568
Craster wrote:
I no longer want to be king of the subeds, on the basis that you are a bunch of



COMPLETE DULLARDS.


I'm desperately trying to find that quote that goes;
"Those who want power and the least desirable to use it" and also mentions the contra? Anyway, by following that premise I VOTE YOU, CRASTERZARD!

_________________
This man is bound by law to clear the snow away


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 22:29 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
Spinglo Sponglo! wrote:
OK, I think I've got this now. Or rather I thought I did, No I do, I think what I need is some actual numbers. What Force can a Jumbo's engines provide? What Force is the resistance of a wheel on a treadmill?

Malc


Okay, so we've moved from an infinite force to a measurable one. PROGRESS!

To get an idea of the numbers involved, think of a pull-back-and-then-go toy car compared to a jet engine. That's about the forces involved.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:04 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Pod wrote:
MR SADE FACE


Image

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:21 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 11:10 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
My mate finally replied, and says:

Quote:
No it wouldn't. Two possible answers here one theoretical and one experimental.

Theoretical, what you said - no air flow.

Experimental, no one does it so therefore it doesn't work. Aircraft carriers would probably be a lot simpler if you could :)

_________________
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Pretty much everyone agrees with Gnomes, really, it's just some are too right on to admit it. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 11:41 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
He's missed what most of us were saying though, which is that the plane would ignore the conveyer and move forwards anyway, thus creating air flow.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:07 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
ComicalGnomes wrote:
My mate finally replied, and says:

Quote:
No it wouldn't. Two possible answers here one theoretical and one experimental.

Theoretical, what you said - no air flow.


But there is airflow.

Quote:
Quote:
Experimental, no one does it so therefore it doesn't work.

But mythbusters tried it and it flew.

Bit of a waste of time that one, wunnit? ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 13:42 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
Craster wrote:
He's missed what most of us were saying though, which is that the plane would ignore the conveyer and move forwards anyway, thus creating air flow.


Still disagree with this :)

_________________
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Pretty much everyone agrees with Gnomes, really, it's just some are too right on to admit it. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 14:03 
User avatar
Rude Belittler

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 5016
ComicalGnomes wrote:
Craster wrote:
He's missed what most of us were saying though, which is that the plane would ignore the conveyer and move forwards anyway, thus creating air flow.


Still disagree with this :)


Arggghhhh!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S377HwOthjo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ul_5DtMLhc


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 14:06 
User avatar
BETEO voice of unreason

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 332
Location: Beeston, Nottm
ComicalGnomes wrote:
Craster wrote:
He's missed what most of us were saying though, which is that the plane would ignore the conveyer and move forwards anyway, thus creating air flow.


Still disagree with this :)


The wheels have no effect on the drive of the plane - the engines work directly on the body of the plane. It's not like a car, where the wheels are what causes the movement. For example, you can get water take off/landing planes that don't have any wheels, but two hulls. The wheels on a plane are there to reduce friction rather than increase it, to put it simply.

_________________
If three and four were seven only, where would that leave one and two?

Townes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 22:27 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
ComicalGnomes wrote:
Craster wrote:
He's missed what most of us were saying though, which is that the plane would ignore the conveyer and move forwards anyway, thus creating air flow.


Still disagree with this :)


Well, give a reason then. Otherwise you're ignoring basic physics and shit, and physics does not like to be ignored...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:38 
User avatar
Isn't that lovely?

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 10910
Location: Devon
ComicalGnomes wrote:
Craster wrote:
He's missed what most of us were saying though, which is that the plane would ignore the conveyer and move forwards anyway, thus creating air flow.


Still disagree with this :)


I think I've finally come round to the "yes it does" brigade.

Sorry CG

Malc

_________________
Where's the Kaboom? I was expecting an Earth shattering Kaboom!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:19 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
Hurrah! Is that everybody, then?

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:22 
User avatar
Kinda Funny Lookin'

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3266
Location: Sheffield or Baku
*Yawn*

What did I miss?

What's that you say? An argument? On the internet?

Shocking!

*Goes back to sleep*

_________________
If work was so rewarding the rich would have bought it all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:46 
User avatar
Thumbelina

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 36
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
I concur with Morte. However, instead of going back to sleep I will go back to watching Blakes 7.

p.s. The question was answered on the first page. All intermediate pages between that post and this entry are completely and utterly irrelevant.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:39 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
After refering my physics mate to this thread, he then responded with this:

http://www.ooine.com/index.cfm/2006/2/5 ... onstructed

While now accepting that I am in fact wrong, and the plane will take off, I find it much easier to accept with the quality of this explanation :)

I think the stumbling block is not realising that the wheels are ultimately free-wheeling, rather than being the source of propulsion. So yes, the plane does move, and the speed of the wheels will increase, but because it's not connected to the source of propulsion it's seperate to the whole thing. Yes, we can close this thread now ;D

_________________
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Pretty much everyone agrees with Gnomes, really, it's just some are too right on to admit it. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:41 
User avatar
Hibernating Druid

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49104
Location: Standing on your mother's Porsche
Where do they bury the survivors though?

_________________
SD&DG Illustrated! Behance Bleep Bloop

'Not without talent but dragged down by bass turgidity'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:45 
User avatar
Thumbelina

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 36
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Good grief. I too would reiterate what was already said on page one, but quite frankly this episode of Blakes 7 is far too riveting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:46 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
ComicalGnomes wrote:
I think the stumbling block is not realising that the wheels are ultimately free-wheeling, rather than being the source of propulsion. So yes, the plane does move, and the speed of the wheels will increase, but because it's not connected to the source of propulsion it's seperate to the whole thing. Yes, we can close this thread now ;D


We did tell you that though

;)

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:47 
User avatar
Hibernating Druid

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49104
Location: Standing on your mother's Porsche
You don't bury survivors!

_________________
SD&DG Illustrated! Behance Bleep Bloop

'Not without talent but dragged down by bass turgidity'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 13:00 
User avatar
Thumbelina

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 36
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Zardoz wrote:
You don't bury survivors!

Ah, crud. What am I going to do with this spade now?

Incidentally, this whole thread has inspired me to design the world's first wheel-propelled airplane.

Incidentally, Avon saved the day by outwitting the alien monster thing. As usual.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 13:02 
User avatar
What-ho, chaps!

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 2138
I'm not sure anyone survived this thread.

_________________
[www.mrdictionary.net]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 13:04 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
ComicalGnomes wrote:
I think the stumbling block is not realising that the wheels are ultimately free-wheeling, rather than being the source of propulsion. So yes, the plane does move, and the speed of the wheels will increase, but because it's not connected to the source of propulsion it's seperate to the whole thing.


Well, to coin a phrase, "Duh" :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 13:09 
User avatar
Hibernating Druid

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49104
Location: Standing on your mother's Porsche
Why don't they make shorter airports then with 'tread-ways'?

_________________
SD&DG Illustrated! Behance Bleep Bloop

'Not without talent but dragged down by bass turgidity'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 13:10 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
Because the 'plane still requires to get up to speed before taking off...

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 13:11 
User avatar
Isn't that lovely?

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 10910
Location: Devon
My problem was I couldn't see the difference between "the treadmill will match the speed of the plane" with "the treadmill will match the speed of the wheels"

If you were take the "speed of the wheel" to be the "speed of the center of a wheel relative to a stationary object not on the treadmill" then I would have been correct :)

Malc

_________________
Where's the Kaboom? I was expecting an Earth shattering Kaboom!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 13:12 
User avatar
Isn't that lovely?

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 10910
Location: Devon
Zardoz wrote:
Why don't they make shorter airports then with 'tread-ways'?


The treadway would have to be twice as long as a normal runway, if they were the other way round then it would help (but I imagine that would be very ineffecient)

Malc

_________________
Where's the Kaboom? I was expecting an Earth shattering Kaboom!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 13:16 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
Spinglo Sponglo! wrote:
Zardoz wrote:
Why don't they make shorter airports then with 'tread-ways'?


The treadway would have to be twice as long as a normal runway


No it wouldn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 13:20 
User avatar
What-ho, chaps!

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 2138
Are you talking belt length or structure length? (The length of the belt would be at least twice the length of the structure, and the length of the structure in this case would be at least the length of a regular runway.)

_________________
[www.mrdictionary.net]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 13:21 
User avatar
Isn't that lovely?

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 10910
Location: Devon
kalmar wrote:
Spinglo Sponglo! wrote:
Zardoz wrote:
Why don't they make shorter airports then with 'tread-ways'?


The treadway would have to be twice as long as a normal runway


No it wouldn't.


Well maybe not twice, but it will need to be longer, after all if the engines were not on, the plane would be being pushed back. (or the engines would have to work harder wither way it's not as practical as just having what we have at the moment)

Malc

_________________
Where's the Kaboom? I was expecting an Earth shattering Kaboom!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 13:22 
User avatar
Isn't that lovely?

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 10910
Location: Devon
MrD wrote:
Are you talking belt length or structure length? (The length of the belt would be at least twice the length of the structure, and the length of the structure in this case would be at least the length of a regular runway.)


Structure length. the belt would be pusing the plane back some, so it will need to work harder or longer to get up to the same speed compared to a normal runway.

Malc

_________________
Where's the Kaboom? I was expecting an Earth shattering Kaboom!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 13:22 
User avatar
Hibernating Druid

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49104
Location: Standing on your mother's Porsche
Why don't plane wings flap? Then they wouldn't need treadways.

_________________
SD&DG Illustrated! Behance Bleep Bloop

'Not without talent but dragged down by bass turgidity'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 13:24 
User avatar
Isn't that lovely?

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 10910
Location: Devon
Zardoz wrote:
Why don't plane wings flap? Then they wouldn't need treadways.


Bird wings are light, plane wings are not.

it's also easier to push something in a straight line (like an engine does) compared to making something that flaps.

Malc

_________________
Where's the Kaboom? I was expecting an Earth shattering Kaboom!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A classic Internet debate...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 13:26 
User avatar
Hibernating Druid

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49104
Location: Standing on your mother's Porsche
Why don't they make light flappy aircraft wings? They'd save a fortune on tarmac and treadways.

_________________
SD&DG Illustrated! Behance Bleep Bloop

'Not without talent but dragged down by bass turgidity'


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 200 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Malc and 0 guests


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
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search within this thread:
You are using the 'Ted' forum. Bill doesn't really exist any more. Bogus!
Want to help out with the hosting / advertising costs? That's very nice of you.
Are you on a mobile phone? Try http://beex.co.uk/m/
RIP, Owen. RIP, MrC.

Powered by a very Grim... version of phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.