Plane on a treadmill

D

Drunkard #1

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,668
oober said:
"The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels..." actually makes no sense to me t.b.h.

The wheels turn as fast as the belt is going so it's more a case of "The wheels can turn as fast as the belt is going without any friction that is transferred to the plane resulting in backwards motion." :D
Click to expand...

No, the surface speed of the wheels is the speed of the belt + the speed of the plane.
 
Ho3n3r

Ho3n3r

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
17,058
Drunkard #1 said:
No. The original post says, verbatim, "The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels..."

I honestly think the confusion here relates to the definition of that term. If they mean the surface speed of the tyre, which is a perfectly valid interpretation, then the universe implodes. If they mean ground speed, then the plane takes off.
Click to expand...

That's not gonna be possible unless you physically force the plane into a specific position.
 
Geoff.D

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
26,878
Arthur said:
What's really scary is that some people here seem to be serious.
Click to expand...

After going through this thread, this is the only comment I agree with. I cannot believe the BS some argue about. Suggest you all read ANY book about applied mathematics that has a chapter on aviation, work through the theory of flight and then get on with life.
 
Jet-Fighter7700

Jet-Fighter7700

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
31,618
daniellgr said:
After going through this thread, this is the only comment I agree with. I cannot believe the BS some argue about. Suggest you all read ANY book about applied mathematics that has a chapter on aviation, work through the theory of flight and then get on with life.
Click to expand...

theory aside, its been done full scale, with an actual plane and an actual converter belt (giant rug pulled behind a bakkie).......
plane took off, more than that what can you argue?

reminds me of the opel monza thing.....
 
Ho3n3r

Ho3n3r

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
17,058
daniellgr said:
After going through this thread, this is the only comment I agree with. I cannot believe the BS some argue about. Suggest you all read ANY book about applied mathematics that has a chapter on aviation, work through the theory of flight and then get on with life.
Click to expand...

Yeah, while we're at it, just close this forum altogether. What is this discussion on different viewpoints nonsense!
 
Geoff.D

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
26,878
Ho3n3r said:
Yeah, while we're at it, just close this forum altogether. What is this discussion on different viewpoints nonsense!
Click to expand...


No there are things to debate and there is rubbish ... Rubbish is generated by all those you do not comprehend the Science they are debating ... This thread is one of those examples. In fact I have just looked up an old exam paper in Applied maths from my student days and this exact example was used to test our understanding of the underlying science ...

So all those that debate this BS are just admitting they never grasped the fundamentals from the get go....
 
Sinbad

Sinbad

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
81,151
daniellgr said:
No there are things to debate and there is rubbish ... Rubbish is generated by all those you do not comprehend the Science they are debating ... This thread is one of those examples. In fact I have just looked up an old exam paper in Applied maths from my student days and this exact example was used to test our understanding of the underlying science ...

So all those that debate this BS are just admitting they never grasped the fundamentals from the get go....
Click to expand...

And I have no problem with people who don't grasp the fundamentals. No-one can know everything.

My problem is with people who declare their opinions, taken from a position of ignorance, as fact.
 
Geoff.D

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
26,878
Sinbad said:
And I have no problem with people who don't grasp the fundamentals. No-one can know everything.

My problem is with people who declare their opinions, taken from a position of ignorance, as fact.
Click to expand...


Agree with you.

And here is another example from the Science must fall thread....

We have to restart science from an African perspective.
Science is built on previous knowledge, and removes the need to restart from scratch. Current scientific achievements, like computers, artificial intelligence, and modern cars, are thanks to hundreds of years of progress by scientists.
In fact, one of the dumbest things you can do in science is to restart investigations of things which have been proven.
Click to expand...

This thread is an example of "one of the dumbest things you can do in Science is to restart investigations [or debates] of things which have been proven".
 
D

Drunkard #1

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,668
daniellgr said:
After going through this thread, this is the only comment I agree with. I cannot believe the BS some argue about. Suggest you all read ANY book about applied mathematics that has a chapter on aviation, work through the theory of flight and then get on with life.
Click to expand...

It's a failure of English in the original premise - you can't fault people for interpreting a term a specific way when you don't define it sufficiently.

eg2505 said:
theory aside, its been done full scale, with an actual plane and an actual converter belt (giant rug pulled behind a bakkie).......
plane took off, more than that what can you argue?

reminds me of the opel monza thing.....
Click to expand...

Depending on your interpretation of the original problem, the full scale test couldn't replicate the situation described.
 
Ho3n3r

Ho3n3r

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
17,058
daniellgr said:
No there are things to debate and there is rubbish ... Rubbish is generated by all those you do not comprehend the Science they are debating ... This thread is one of those examples. In fact I have just looked up an old exam paper in Applied maths from my student days and this exact example was used to test our understanding of the underlying science ...

So all those that debate this BS are just admitting they never grasped the fundamentals from the get go....
Click to expand...

It's your opinion, and I respect it. But I don't agree with it. If someone can't grasp the fundamentals, they're still allowed to think they do. It's on them if they get ridiculed for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top