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.
p.s. The question was answered on the first page. All intermediate pages between that post and this entry are completely and utterly irrelevant.
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
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
Where do they bury the survivors though?
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.
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
You don't bury survivors!
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.
I'm not sure anyone survived this thread.
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"
Why don't they make shorter airports then with 'tread-ways'?
Because the 'plane still requires to get up to speed before taking off...
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
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
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
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.
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.)
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
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
Why don't plane wings flap? Then they wouldn't need treadways.
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
Why don't they make light flappy aircraft wings? They'd save a fortune on tarmac and treadways.
it's also easier to push something in a straight line (like an engine does) compared to making something that flaps.
Man, you'd have thought after recent performances, that certain people wouldn't suddenly declare themselves to be experts in aeronautical matters. Although, this is the internet, so fair enough..
Spinglo Sponglo! wrote:
it's also easier to push something in a straight line (like an engine does) compared to making something that flaps.
Nothing good ever came easy.
Clearly the answer is to fly by harrier jumpjet instead.
kalmar wrote:
Man, you'd have thought after recent performances, that certain people wouldn't suddenly declare themselves to be experts in aeronautical matters. Although, this is the internet, so fair enough..
Who's declaring anything?
Malc
Why don't we travel the world by jumping down through the earth in tubes?
We can't drill down that far. Also, I can't remember what's supposed to happen. Are you crushed, or would you just hang in a certain spot where gravity is at some kind of self-cancelling equilibrium?
ComicalGnomes wrote:
We can't drill down that far.
Get robots to do it.
Also: Anyone in their right mind knows the biggest problem down there is fighting dinosaurs.
ComicalGnomes wrote:
We can't drill down that far. Also, I can't remember what's supposed to happen. Are you crushed, or would you just hang in a certain spot where gravity is at some kind of self-cancelling equilibrium?
Burning aside, if you could negate air resistance you could pop out the other end of the world. Sadly, air resistance would cause you to oscillate with damped harmonic motion (or something) until you came to rest in the middle. Even more sadly, you'd get burnt to death long before that.
Yeah, but seriously, Zardoz is right, the Dinosaurs would get you first before any of this other stuff got chance to happen.
There was an episode of Angel where they had, like, a demon long-term parking facility right through the centre of the earth. Good use of space I thought.
pupil wrote:
Yeah, but seriously, Zardoz is right, the Dinosaurs would get you first before any of this other stuff got chance to happen.
No. A quick sidestep and they'd stumble into your tunnel and explode.
Pterodactyls wouldn't, they'd scream your face off.
So we're in agreement: the plane couldn't take off.
myoptika wrote:
So we're in agreement: the plane couldn't take off.
Correct - it had no fuel.
Unless it had lightweight flappy wings.
Or was being pushed along whilst on rollerskates.
myoptika wrote:
So we're in agreement: the plane couldn't take off.
*takes a piece of 2 by 4, writes 'Feynman's physics education stick' on it in black marker, and proceeds to beat Myoptika round the head with it*
Pundabaya wrote:
myoptika wrote:
So we're in agreement: the plane couldn't take off.
*takes a piece of 2 by 4, writes 'Feynman's physics education stick' on it in black marker, and proceeds to beat Myoptika round the head with it*
Then plays bongos and (SNIP - libel ed)
markg wrote:
pupil wrote:
Yeah, but seriously, Zardoz is right, the Dinosaurs would get you first before any of this other stuff got chance to happen.
No. A quick sidestep and they'd stumble into your tunnel and explode.
I would personally take a small pump with me as I burrowed, to inflate them until they popped.
Don't take a sword and cut them in half - you'll be faced with twice as many dinosaurs if you do.
Craster wrote:
Don't take a sword and cut them in half - you'll be faced with twice as many dinosaurs if you do.
And definitely don't take a cheesegrater, then.
It turns out the plane was planning to depart from terminal 5 all along, and so never had a chance of taking off.
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
a) People tried to point this out to you multiple times in this very thread.
b) Did you and your clever physics mate really need people to explain to you that when a plane charges down a runway with its jet engines roaring, that it is those same ROARING JET ENGINES that are providing the thrust?
c) Your mate should turn in his "I'm A Physicist" card and take up something else. Like pottery.
Lloyd Mangram wrote:
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
a) People tried to point this out to you multiple times in this very thread.
b) Did you and your clever physics mate really need people to explain to you that when a plane charges down a runway with its jet engines roaring, that it is those same ROARING JET ENGINES that are providing the thrust?
Welcome, LLoyd. You're his physics mate, aren't you. You are, aren't you. Go on, you are.
If you're not, you perhaps should be
Lets get Physics-al, Physics-al,
I wanna get Physics-aaaaaaaaaaaaal,
Lemme hear you Spodders squark, you Spodders squark
I wanna get Physics-aaaaaaaaaaaaal,
Lemme hear you Spodders squark, you Spodders squark
Lloyd Mangram wrote:
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
a) People tried to point this out to you multiple times in this very thread.
b) Did you and your clever physics mate really need people to explain to you that when a plane charges down a runway with its jet engines roaring, that it is those same ROARING JET ENGINES that are providing the thrust?
c) Your mate should turn in his "I'm A Physicist" card and take up something else. Like pottery.
Just looks like some little tosspot who signed up purely to take a poke at me. How very special
ComicalGnomes wrote:
Just looks like some little tosspot who signed up purely to take a poke at me. How very special
I did, yes. And I realise that signing up just to vent at someone is a pisspoor way to start posting on a forum, and I now I'd be best off fading back into the lurky shadows from whence I came, but there's something about this debate that never fails to make my normally restful dander rise until it most definitely is up.
Mainly what got me going was the fact that others persistently tried to explain the "wheels aren't pushing the plane/think of a rollerskate being pushed on a treadmill" concept to you, only to have you stick your fingers in your ears and say "No no no I'm going to check with my physics mate! He's smart." And then your brilliant physics mate goes and gets it all arse about anyway, AND THEN after your mate finds a page that can explain it in terms he can understand so that you both finally comprehend the matter, you come back and state that you find it "much easier to accept with the quality of this explanation" and then attempt to explain the so-called stumbling block to everyone else, even though that stumbling block is like a single block of Lego placed in the middle of the Black Rock Desert.
At that point, I began thrashing about wildly like a slug in a saltshaker and signed up to let off steam.
I really shouldn't have gotten worked up, as the majority of the responses in this thread were on the mark. It even had clever chaps addressing the feedback loop that would be caused if the treadmill was supposed to match the rotational speed of the wheels, though thankfully that wasn't the terms of the question in this case.
But anyway, vent I did, and I understand that makes me a tosspot or an arsewanker or just a big greasy nerd, but that's something I'm going to have to live with. I'm also going to have to live with my blood pressure being too easily raised by threads on forums... but oh god this plane on runway thing why oh why arrrrghgrhrjhhfzqv#k$&~^
connection lost_