This has been bugging me

This has been bugging me....

Attached: GetFukdMoron.jpg (600x600, 42K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/YORCk1BN7QY
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Attached: trolled3.png (315x292, 13K)

yeah pull up, duh.

No. Because lift isn't wheel speed, it's airflow over the wings. You can goose the jets until they explode, if the craft is moving zero airflow over the wings, no lift.

Yes, if the plane's engines start. If not, no. Planes use air passing under the wings for lift off

lift is cause by the air moving over the wings. There's no lift in this situation so no.

>plane immediately flying, as in hovering in place
nope, not how lift works.
>plane engines turn on, propels it forward, off the conveyor until it generates enough speed to fly
is what happens.

Imagine actually taking the time to type out a response to this.

Attached: 1569084343444.png (550x550, 136K)

Yes. The plane's wheels rotate twice as fast, but the plane moves forward and can take off.

Ah! But the wheels are not what causes the forward motion at takeoff. Surprisingly, this plane would actually lift off. They even proved it on Mythbusters. The plane's pilot was even shocked it worked, but if you think about it a moment, you realize that the wheels would be doing a very bad job if they didn't spin freely enough to be a non-issue in this situation.

as the converyor speeds increase, and this would happen very quickly, an amount of friction would be generated by the wheel/hub bearings that would exert a force on the plane in the opposite direction of its travel.

this would be a very small amount of force and the conveyor would probably have to spin at a speed that puts the landing gear beyond its rated ground speed. those tires are not designed to run on the ground at 10,000mph. they would explode and the remaining structure of the airplane would dig into the conveyor belt essentially grounding it.

I thought everyone knew that planes were propelled by their wheels? Those engines on the wings are just there for looks.

you can literally just youtube this "question"

Yes, air is hitting the wings as it moves forward. it would lift off the belt.

No, it’s about wind flowing under the wings, in this hypo no wind is created

holy stupidity...
the motive power isn't remotely connected to or coming from the wheels

"goose the jets" you physics insect, and for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction

aircraft accelerates and takes off

but you prob wonder how they taxi in winter with bald tires, don't you???

Why would air hit the wings in this hypo?

there is the same lift as with a regular runway
think

The plane engines would thrust it off of the treadmill. The wheels aren't providing force like your feet or the wheels of a car would.

because the plane moves forward.

This only works if the earth is round, as the plane will roll off the curvature of the treadmill, since earth is flat this doenst happen irl

The amount of retards in this thread that don't realize that a plane's power comes from it's engines and not it's wheels is fucking staggering.

Conveyor belt or not, that plane is gonna move forward Goddamn dense motherfuckers

if it moved forward, then the conveyor is not matching the speed of the tire....

the meme clearly states the treadmill matches the speed in the opposite direction.

you cannot into simple linear motion

How sticky are the tires?

They're just trolling. People couldn't be that stupid... right?

Starting the engines makes no difference. It is not the engine thrust that creates lift, it is airflow over the wing. Engine thrust is behind wing.

Mythbusters did this and found that the plane can still take off so that's good enough for me in this hypothetical.

The belt doesn't provide the thrust and lift the plane needs to take off so no. Just like a car would do if you put it on a conveyer belt.

The aircraft's forward velocity is zero. No air moving over the wing surface, it doesn't matter if the engines are thrusting. The OP says the plane stays stationary because the TREADMILL is moving in direct opposite speed. If the plane stays stationary, no airflow over the wings, no lift.

Mythbusters did this. the plane took off.

Yes the plane will take off in this situation at 8mins an hour.

Lift is generated by air molecules hitting the wings. The plane is not moving relative to the air. The plane will not fly.

The treadmill is keeping the plane in one place. Jets can thrust all they want.

Why imagaine when you can do it while also being a faggot about it

Plane took off on mythbusters. End of discussion.

Wtf dude use your brain
what in the world would stop it from moving forward?

Their conveyor wasn't able to match the same speed the plane was moving forwards, they took a fucking lazy and shitty way out and pretended like it counted.

Don't be a moron user.

moron, holy christ

look, i'll make it super simple for you
imagine the plane is moving forward at 10mph, and the treadmill starts spinning backward at 10mph

what do you really think happens?
it slows down?
no.
the wheels speed up to 20mph
plane still going 10

just stop commenting if you can't understand why wheel speed is irrelevent

massive amount of air passing out the back of engines = forward force

REALLY people, what the fuck does the motion of the ground have to do with it?

Do you think boats can't move opposite to waves???????????

Yep

plane is moving forward because plane is pushed forward due to thrust of air out of engines, not through traction force connected to the ground

do the math, moron
you're so wrong it hurts

And how many college level physics courses have you taken?

Yes... yes they are. These dumb motherfuckers must think that a plane works like a car.

Airplane wheels don't have power on their own.
Don't reproduce, kill yourself, and if you have reproduced, do a Benoit for their sake.

Attached: idk.png (1073x737, 30K)

Mythbusters can suck a dick. They don't get everything right.

Imagine a pilot in a cockpit with a magical throttle. It not only fires the engines, but also calibrates the treadmill to keep the plane at an exact zero forward speed. No lift, no fly. The concept the Mythbusters missed was calibrating the treadmill to keep the plane at zero forward speed.

If the wheel spin up to 20mph, the conveyor moves at 20mph. The conveyor moves as fast as the wheels moron, not the plane.

Learn to fucking read before you try to act smarter than everyone else.

While you're making it simple for me, you might actually uncork your head from your ass and have an epiphany yourself.

>air molecules

Attached: kek police.jpg (727x485, 51K)

A conveyor belt cannot exert enough force to cancel the forward thrust. The tires will slide and smoke if they have to, but the plane will move forward.

>the conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels

Not possible.

Wheels don't propel or stop the plane, they only exist to remove the friction between the plane and the ground.

The engines will pull the plan forward, and the wheels will simply spin faster to counteract any "backwards" moving ground.

Assuming this riddle isn't some bullshit "the treadmill isn't long enough" or "nobody said the engines are on" troll, simple physics dictate the plane will absolutely move forward and the treadmill movement will be rendered completely irrelevant.

This has already been proven in real-world tests.

Air isn't molecules, its a fucking gas.

Jesus christ I knew b-tards could be stupid but this is really taking it to the next level.

then the wheel spin as fast as they need to to keep the plane moving forward.

Your argument would also dictate that if the treadmill was instantly stopped, the plane would instantly stop as well, not roll forward with momentum.

So, as you can see, you're fucking retarded.

youtu.be/YORCk1BN7QY

Point to a single real world test that replicated the conditions of this hypo.

Mythbusters DIDN'T do it.

a plane doesn't fly with its wheels. they have these little whirly-gig doodles.

The plane wouldn't need to stop IF IT NEVER COULD MOVE FORWARD IN THE FIRST PLACE.

This whole thread full of new fags.

A backwards running treadmill at infinite speed is not sufficient to stop the plane from eventually gaining forward momentum.

Attached: mhmm.png (710x576, 185K)

Speed of THE WHEELS you fucking mongoloid.

The wheels don't move the plane.
kill
your
self

Its sufficient to, in rapid order:

Destroy the wheels, destroy the struts, then destroy the fuselage in a rapid and violent energetic event.

Which is sufficient to prevent the plane from taking off in any traditional sense of the word.

Ergo, the plane does not take off. Checkmate morons.

You are assuming an infinite coefficient of friction, which is not possible. The interface between belt and tire cannot counter the force of the engines.

The question literally is "someone designs a treadmill to stop a plane from taking off by counteracting the wheel speed. Does it stop the plane?"

The answer is no, because this design fails, because physics literally proves it fails.

But as the plane moves forward, the wheels must rotate with a circumfrential velocity matching the forward momentum. And the speed of the conveyor matches the speed of the wheels. Speed of conveyor cancels out the circumfrential velocity of the wheels, so the plane CANNOT MOVE FORWARD.

If the engines don't start, there's nothing else to move the aircraft, and nothing moving provides no airflow over the wing, unless there's one hell of a headwind.

>people that did an experiment reached an incorrect conclusion
>i'll prove it with imagination

The wheels don't "have" to rotate at all, you can lock up the wheels, the plane will slide forward.

Attached: 1365820956067.jpg (550x526, 55K)

>From the physics.stackexchange.post
Consider a wheel of radius R on a treadmill. The treadmill surface has a linear speed vT to the right. The center of the wheel has a linear speed vP to the left. The CCW angular speed of the wheel is:

ω=(vT+vP) / R
If "run at the same speed as whatever the planes tyres rotation speed" means:

ω=(vT) / R
then the constraint requires vP=0. That is, the question, as posed, is:

If the treadmill is run such that the plane doesn't move, will the plane take off?

Obviously, the answer is no. The plane must move to take off. Looking at mwengler's long answer, we see what is happening. The rotational speed of the tires and treadmill are not the key, it is the acceleration of the treadmill that imparts a force on the wheel axles (ignoring friction for simplicity here).

So, it is in fact the case that it is possible, in principle, ( don't think it is possible in practice though) to control the treadmill in such a way that it imparts a holding force on the plane, preventing it from moving. But, once again, this force is not proportional to the wheels rotational speed, but to the wheel's angular acceleration (note that in the idealized case of massless wheels, it isn't even possible in principle as the lower the moment of inertia of the wheels, the greater the required angular acceleration).

>TL DR If you apply the conditions of the hypothesis, the plane doesn't move ERGO => it doesn't lift off

Attached: 1496669904915.jpg (540x540, 46K)

Mythbusters is an entertainment tv show on a limited budget, not scientists.

Imagine being such a moron you take any conclusions they reach as being a valid basis for understanding anything scientific.

It is not possible for the speed of the conveyor to match the speed of the wheels, because the speed of the wheels is always:

speed of the conveyor + engine thrust

Therefore, the OP question is actually:

Does "speed of the conveyor" = "speed of the conveyor" + "engine thrust", and obviously, mathematically and physically, that's a very clear "no".

Just because something is "designed" to achieve a goal isn't a given that it succeeds.

I "design" a hammock with a single piece of dental floss to support a dump truck - it doesn't. You're the retard in here going "the hammock is DESIGNED to support a dump truck with dental floss!!!!!1111"

Oh fuck I'm nauseous.

yikes how can you possibly be this stupid

You've correctly identified the importance of the force exerted by the engines.

While conveniently omitting the importance of the force exerted frictionally on the wheel bearings by our rapidly moving conveyor.

Must be nice to just pull shit out of your ass and think it makes you smart.

>I "design" a hammock with a single piece of dental floss to support a dump truck - it doesn't. You're the retard in here going "the hammock is DESIGNED to support a dump truck with dental floss!!!!!1111"
That depends on the type of dental floss, its length, how many times it is looped and the structure it's formed into to support the dump truck.
It's technically possible tho.

eventually the engines would be pulling on the atmosphere enough to take off. it wouldn't be the same effect but we're pretty much underwater on the ground on earth compared to the moon. the air is pretty fucking dense compared to space. the belt doesn't matter once the engines are at even half power to make the plane go 200 mph in the air. it WOULD move forward, it might not take off, but it would get off the stupid conveyor belt, maybe break the landing gear and hit the ground but it WOULD move.

The force exerted frictionally on the wheel bearings by the rapidly moving conveyor is irrelevant.

If you have an infinitely powerful conveyor, I have infinitely powerful bearings, fuckwad.

The planes absolutely, irrefutably, verifiably moves forward, even if your conveyor literally moves in the opposite direction at infinity speed.

If your bearings/wheels are frictionless then the entire setup is roughly equivalent to a seaplane or an ice skid plane.

No because the plane isn’t actually moving. It’s stationary.

Here's an inverse way of showing people why they're wrong:

>A car is designed to reach the following speed: the current speed of the car + 60 miles per hour
>Does the red car ever reach that speed?

Obviously, this is a very easy "no". The car cannot possibly reach that speed, no matter how it was "designed".

If you think the car can reach that physically impossible design speed, you are the same moron that thinks the treadmill can stop the planes forward momentum.

/thread

The plane is a normal plane, fuckwad.

The only hypo part is the magic conveyor.

Cars and planes are the same.

Attached: tard.jpg (299x168, 7K)

Yes, the engines provide movement not the wheels, so wheels will spin twice as fast

What about the massive wall of air being sucked forward by those big engines under the wings? Wouldn't it be sufficient enough to allow the plane enough lift for the forward thrust of the engines to take the plane forward? Wheels wouldn't account for anything since the air produced by both the engines and tradmill be enoung to cause the plane to take off.

No. The plane is moving at 0mph relative to the air around it. There is no movement across the wings, so no lift.

Jet engines provide forward thrust, not airflow over the wings.

Adults are speaking, go away moron.

Air isn't sucked forward, it's sucked into the engine, which happens to have little to none of the lift-generating properties of the wing because it's not shaped to reduce air pressure.

So if the plane took off on treadmill what hit pentagon?????

If we ignore for a moment the fact that the jet engines are designed to provide air flow over the wings and look at it from the perspective of the engines acting like thrusters on VTOL machines, the answer would still be no. The jet engines alone aren't enough to lift the plane. That forward movement is needed. Even if you pointed the jet engines straight up so that they "sucked" the plane into the air, it isn't enough power to pull up the huge bird.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Engines don't "suck", they push.

Stupid child.

Let's make it simple for you. You are on a treadmill, you are running, your position to another object is the same because you are on the treadmill. If your position doesn't change over time, you are not accelerating.

It's not a "magic" treadmill. Here's the OP question:

>a treadmill is designed to do X
>does the design succeed in achieving X?

Imagine I give you the following question:

>A nuclear reactor is designed to run on skittles
>Does the design succeed in achieving nuclear power?

Obviously, the answer is no. But for some reason, you (and a select few other retards) always shit all over these threads with "YES IT DOES, YES IT DOES - ITS DESIGNED TO RUN ON SKITTLES"

You dense motherfucker, the puzzle implies the planes wheels have infinite friction with the treadmill and would never lock up or break off the plane. The plane cannot lift without sufficient lift force under the wings generated by moving forward through the fucking air in the first place.

How the fuck does a bird fly, does it fucking levitate or does it swoop its wings as it flies FORWARD?

Your wheels also have infinite friction, checkmate.

>the puzzle implies the planes wheels have infinite friction with the treadmill

No it doesn't.

you sir are retarded

No. There would be no wind current under the wings.

If there's friction on the wheels, there's friction on the treadmill gears, and your treadmill doesn't work either.

It literally doesn't matter how you try to prioritize the physical constraints of the treadmill.

The equation you are attempting to rationalize is X = X + Y, where all values are known to be positive and greater than 0.

Good luck.

That's not an argument.