The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Die, thread... die

Must... respond... can't... stop...

It's good that you have the experience of being an AC. I was always a tad envious, as I stood freezing my butt off in a -35 degree wind chill on the flight line, with that warm AC tower in clear view.

I'm still not sure how that relates. There is no dispute that cold shots dump aircraft into the sea. Unfortunately, it has no bearing. Neither runways (with a few notable exceptions at Naval Aviation Training facilities), nor our hypothetical treadmill have cats, and a Nimitz class carrier is not a treadmill, nor a runway. There are no fixed wing aircraft in the current Naval inventory that can get airborne from a carrier deck without a catipult under normal circumstances (you know... perhaps a COD with a full deck run... )

Imagine a treadmill in your livingroom. On the treadmill, you place a skateboard, on which you are seated (apparently the unicycle example was too complicated, DesertSkin) In front of you, is a rope, tied to the wall. You grasp the rope, and start the treadmill, which then attempts to pull you away from the wall.

However, as you are holding onto the rope, you remain stationary. This represents the minimal thrust needed to overcome rolling resistance... which is the ONLY hold the treadmill has on you.

What happens when you provide additional thrust by pulling on the rope? That thrust is the same force provided by a jet engine. It matters not if you increase the speed of the treadmill, nor even by how much. Run the treadmill at 1 mph or 10 mph, you still move forward move forward, with virtually all effort being converted to forward momentum relative to airspeed.

Additionally, airspeed is unrelated to the treadmill... only to the you. If wind speed is 0 around the treadmill, and your forward speed of the skateboard is 1 mph (which will happen), the airspeed is then 1 mph. If you were capable of flight at 1 mph, you would be safe to rotate.

The treadmill is a red herring... a distractor. It has NO BEARING on the momentum of the aircraft, beyond the effect of rolling resistance (which is easily overcome by the thrust of the engines, no matter how fast the treadmill moves) The aircraft will accelerate. The takeoff roll would be no longer than on a non-moving surface.

Is this the bit where I say that I agree with the man above? Because I do.

Some people have got confused. Those of us who say that the 'plane will take off are not saying that it will take off from a stationary position. We are not claiming that the treadmill will remove the need for the aircraft to produce lift by moving forward through the air. If this were the case, then of course such technology would be in use on aircaft carriers and in airports all over the world.

What we are saying here is that the treadmill will simply not stop the aircraft from moving forward, because the treadmill cannot possibly stop the jet engines from producing thrust. When that thrust is produced, anything attached to those engines is going to start moving in the same direction as the engines.

Get me a treadmill and a 747, and I'll fly the damn thing myself.

Countertrey wrote:Die, thread... die

Must... respond... can't... stop... .

Would you rather be discussing politics, the US constitution or the Middle East? This thread is a little oasis.

Oh, and I agree with both of the previous posts.

UK Skins Fan wrote:Is this the bit where I say that I agree with the man above? Because I do.

Some people have got confused. Those of us who say that the 'plane will take off are not saying that it will take off from a stationary position. We are not claiming that the treadmill will remove the need for the aircraft to produce lift by moving forward through the air. If this were the case, then of course such technology would be in use on aircaft carriers and in airports all over the world.

What we are saying here is that the treadmill will simply not stop the aircraft from moving forward, because the treadmill cannot possibly stop the jet engines from producing thrust. When that thrust is produced, anything attached to those engines is going to start moving in the same direction as the engines.

Get me a treadmill and a 747, and I'll fly the damn thing myself.

However the point of the treadmil is to state that the plane would be stationary although the engines would be moving, heck it could be a hamster wheel instead of a treadmil. I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) the person who originally asked this question wanted to ask if a plane was stationary and it propultion system (jet or propeller) reached the necessary speed for lift off, would the plane actually lift off from that said stationary position.

Sorry for that geeky post but I felt like it needed a little explaining.

No, it will not lift off from a stationary position. If the treadmill was able to stop the aircraft moving forwards, then it would not get off the ground. And that is the argument here - will the treadmill stop the aircraft from moving at all?

Some say that it will. I say that it won't (stop the aircraft from moving).

Would you rather be discussing politics, the US constitution or the Middle East? This thread is a little oasis.

I like all of those... but, free agency has started, and the draft is almost upon us. And, the plane will fly.

Countertrey wrote:

Would you rather be discussing politics, the US constitution or the Middle East? This thread is a little oasis.

I like all of those... but, free agency has started, and the draft is almost upon us. And, the plane will fly.

No the plane won't fly! It has just been grounded by the FAA for spending too much time on the tarmac! (11 frakking pages worth!)

UK Skins Fan wrote:No, it will not lift off from a stationary position. If the treadmill was able to stop the aircraft moving forwards, then it would not get off the ground.

So basically we all agree and we are beating the tar out of a dead horse?

xhadow wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:No, it will not lift off from a stationary position. If the treadmill was able to stop the aircraft moving forwards, then it would not get off the ground.

So basically we all agree and we are beating the tar out of a dead horse?

I've done some online research on this and I've found literally dozens of sites that all say the plane will take off. Probably the best example: imagine instead of a plane, you've got a rocket with wheels sitting on that belt. When that rocket fires, it's eventually going to rocket off the end of that belt...which means that it doesn't remain stationary to the ground and if it had wings, it would fly.

http://www.kottke.org/06/02/plane-conveyor-belt
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060203.html


Is it dead now????? I've got a plane to catch.

First let me pull my bat back out, I just saw the horse twitch.

DesertSkin wrote:I've done some online research on this and I've found literally dozens of sites that all say the plane will take off. Probably the best example: imagine instead of a plane, you've got a rocket with wheels sitting on that belt. When that rocket fires, it's eventually going to rocket off the end of that belt...which means that it doesn't remain stationary to the ground and if it had wings, it would fly.

I see your point but you forgot the original question.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer).
The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite
direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite
direction).The question is:Will the plane take off or not?

If the conveyer is moving at the same speed as the plane then it would be basically standing still. The whole point of the conveyor is to make the plane stationary. Kind of like standing on a tredmill with rollerskates on while holding onto the rails, the wheels will be rolling but you will go no where. Kind of like this thread... lol

If someone from the ground crew had did there job and had the plane pointed in the right direction this thread would have ended pages ago.

xhadow wrote:First let me pull my bat back out, I just saw the horse twitch.

DesertSkin wrote:I've done some online research on this and I've found literally dozens of sites that all say the plane will take off. Probably the best example: imagine instead of a plane, you've got a rocket with wheels sitting on that belt. When that rocket fires, it's eventually going to rocket off the end of that belt...which means that it doesn't remain stationary to the ground and if it had wings, it would fly.

I see your point but you forgot the original question.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer).
The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite
direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite
direction).The question is:Will the plane take off or not?

If the conveyer is moving at the same speed as the plane then it would be basically standing still. The whole point of the conveyor is to make the plane stationary. Kind of like standing on a tredmill with rollerskates on while holding onto the rails, the wheels will be rolling but you will go no where. Kind of like this thread... lol

OK I'll try this one last time. You, sir, need to re-read the question and ask you self "What assumptions am I making. And are they correct" You assume that the treadmill will be able to keep the plane from moving because that is what treadmills tend to do. Keep moving objects exerting force on the ground from moving forward. But the whole point is that that assume is incorrect if you apply the laws of physics and engineering principles. The questions is designed to foul you by playing with you preconcieved assumptions.

Take your rollerskate example. make the treadmill go 40 mph, steady yourself and then hold on with one pinkie. You will stay put. Now what your saying is that your pinkie holding on is creating the equivalent of 40 mph of force forward. do you really think that makes sense? All your pinkie is really doing is overcoming the friction of your freespinning wheel to hold you in place.


I've tried. I'm sorry. I'm done.

I have made no assumptions. I am making my answer fit the question.

Now the largest assumption that has been made is that there are currently no conveyor belts that could match a planes speed therefor as soon as the plane was going faster than the conveyor it would achieve forward motion, with enough forward motion air pressure would build up underneath the wings of the plane thus creating lift, and the plane would fly.

But, whats the point of mentioning that the conveyor belt that can syncronize with the speed of the plane? I posted the original question for both our goods. For me to ensure that I was answering the given question and for you to show you, and anyone else debating this, that it was a part of the original question which makes it important.

If it wasn't important it wouldn't have been added.

It's not the Question that's the problem, it's the description off the situation that is so Gray.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer).
The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite
direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite
direction).The question is:Will the plane take off or not?

The conveyor tracks the speed of the plane and will adjust it's speed to match the planes. Wouldn't the mean the plane has started to move prior to the belt starting?
If the plane picked up speed would it not be moving faster than the conveyor until the conveyor figured out that it needs to increase it's speed to match that of the plane?

If the plane increases speed at a steady but irregular pace wouldn't the conveyor always be a little behind?

Wouldn't this increase the amount of air around the plane and at some point give it enough lift.

If the pilot built up the RPMs on the engines before releasing the breaks would the conveyor be able to match its speed before it took flight.

What type of plane are we talking about? Who made the conveyor? Is it under waranty (we are placing a plane on it). Does placing a plane on the conveyor void the waranty? Is there a time limit on how long we wait to see if the plane takes off? If no, who's suppling the jet fuel?

The question is simple the details are the issue.

It figures a guy with 10,000 post would start a thread like this (over a month ago) and then not post in it

xhadow wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:No, it will not lift off from a stationary position. If the treadmill was able to stop the aircraft moving forwards, then it would not get off the ground.

So basically we all agree and we are beating the tar out of a dead horse?

We don't agree, because the treadmill will not keep the aircraft stationary. But if it were able to do so, then we would agree. But it won't, so we don't. Unless we can all agree that some of us won't agree until somebody builds the treadmill.

Those jet engines, and the wings that they are attached to, are going to take off. Personally, I don't believe that the wheels are going to remain rooted to the treadmill when that happens.

And I'm not letting this thread die until the Redskins sign another free agent.

UK Skins Fan wrote:
And I'm not letting this thread die until the Redskins sign another free agent.

Well if thats the case then we do agree on something.

We don't agree, because the treadmill will not keep the aircraft stationary. But if it were able to do so, then we would agree. But it won't, so we don't. Unless we can all agree that some of us won't agree until somebody builds the treadmill.

Thats the point of a theoretical isits based on a theory and theory is that if there existed a tredmill that could keep up to speed with an airplane (or even was large enough to hold an airplane)

I am not arguing that there isn't a tredmill that could do either of these things but if there was then the plane wouldn't take off. Absent that then of course using any and all conveyors know to man at this time the plane would eventually accelerate past the point that the tredmill could keep up with (critical mass?) and then it would start moving forward until it gained enough airspeed to achieve lift.

My thing is if the original question was only based on known technology then the question wouldn't have been asked because the answer is obvious.

I am on my way to the mythbusters website to suggest this for a future show. I figure that will settle this argument once and for all!

xhadow wrote: I figure that will settle this argument once and for all!

Nope

1niksder wrote:It figures a guy with 10,000 post would start a thread like this (over a month ago) and then not post in it

I have nothing constructive to add this debate.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

1niksder wrote:It figures a guy with 10,000 post would start a thread like this (over a month ago) and then not post in it

I have nothing constructive to add this debate.

You never did.

My thing is if the original question was only based on known technology then the question wouldn't have been asked because the answer is obvious.

Here's the problem with that... the question NEVER assumes that the aircraft will remain stationary relative to the earth ( which is the assumption that all of those arguing the plane will not take off have made).

The assumptions made in the question:

A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer).
The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite
direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite
direction).

The pilot increases thrust to overcome inertia. He begins to taxi at 1 mph. the "control system" observes this, and accellerates the treadmill to 1mph, in the opposite direction. The aircraft continues to move at 1 mph relative to the ground. However, relative to the treadmill, it is now moving at 2 mph. As the aircraft accellerates, this same ratio will continue to grow. For each mph of forward speed relative to the ground, the speed relative to the treadmill will increase by 2 (1=2, 2=4, 3=6, 4=8, etc.) If the aircraft rotates at 150 mph relative to the ground, the speed relative to the treadmill will be 300 mph...

unless, of course, the tires shred due to the excessive tire speed, causing the aircraft to catch a wing tip, and sending the plane into cartwheels, spilling several tons of fiery fuel over the remainder of the treadmill, and turning the entire, costly device into an inferno, which is seen on TV by Steven King, who writes a terrifying novel about a time travelling treadmill of fiery death.

Hope you're happy, CLL. Look at the millions we just wasted, all because of your rediculous question. The only one who profits is Steven King.

Countertrey wrote:

My thing is if the original question was only based on known technology then the question wouldn't have been asked because the answer is obvious.

Here's the problem with that... the question NEVER assumes that the aircraft will remain stationary relative to the earth ( which is the assumption that all of those arguing the plane will not take off have made).

My point is if it doesn't assume that then whats the point of the question in the first place

Countertrey wrote:The assumptions made in the question:

A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer).
The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite
direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite
direction).

unless I am mistaken (and I have been, thanks to my wife, constanly reminded that I usually am mistaken) The action of moving forward is being counteracted by the tredmils backwards movement, therefore the plane isn't moving at all.

Countertrey wrote:The pilot increases thrust to overcome inertia.

which is immediately negated by the "control system"

Countertrey wrote:He begins to taxi at 1 mph. the "control system" observes this, and accellerates the treadmill to 1mph, in the opposite direction. The aircraft continues to move at 1 mph relative to the ground. However, relative to the treadmill, it is now moving at 2 mph. As the aircraft accellerates, this same ratio will continue to grow. For each mph of forward speed relative to the ground, the speed relative to the treadmill will increase by 2 (1=2, 2=4, 3=6, 4=8, etc.)

In spite of all of this the position of the plane is stationary, the wheels are spinning but it isn't making any forward progress.

Countertrey wrote: If the aircraft rotates at 150 mph relative to the ground, the speed relative to the treadmill will be 300 mph...

which makes the plane still stationary in relation to everything not on a tredmill

Countertrey wrote:unless, of course, the tires shred due to the excessive tire speed, causing the aircraft to catch a wing tip, and sending the plane into cartwheels, spilling several tons of fiery fuel over the remainder of the treadmill, and turning the entire, costly device into an inferno, which is seen on TV by Steven King, who writes a terrifying novel about a time travelling treadmill of fiery death.

Time travel??? Wow I didn't consider that angle!

Well, it probably wouldn't take the tires shreding for this to happen. I'm guessing the ball bearings would eventually overheat and explode thus creating the lift needed to get the plane off the ground and into the air in a brilliant display of fireworks rivaled only by the fourth of july in DC.

So I guess I was wrong, eventually one way or the other the plane will get off the ground.

However for the sake of argument (and awaiting our beloved skins to sign a new player) I say that your calculation of a million dollars for the treadmill is way off. We need to talk to Mr Snyder about spending the money to actually make this happen and then we wait for him to pay a cost much higher than actually estimated to build it and when it all goes up in flames we can all say...

At least we didn't overspend in free agency!!

(Maybe we can get Tom Cruise to pilot the plane!!!! I can see it now Top Gun 2.... The Tredmill)
[/b]

Still no news on the free agency or draft front.

I said:

If the aircraft rotates at 150 mph relative to the ground, the speed relative to the treadmill will be 300 mph...

You responded:

which makes the plane still stationary in relation to everything not on a tredmill

I would LOVE to see your math on this! The treadmill is running at 150 mph, the wheels are turning at 300 mph, but it remains motionless...
You may have solved a major mystery of quantum mechanics. You may want to tell Steven Hawking!

Ok I lied about letting the thread die

unless I am mistaken (and I have been, thanks to my wife, constanly reminded that I usually am mistaken) The action of moving forward is being counteracted by the tredmils backwards movement, therefore the plane isn't moving at all.

YES. This is the assumption you're making that I was addressing earlier and it is an incorrect assumption. Physics, for all the reasons stated earlier will not allow the treadmill to apply force to any part of the airplane except the wheels. But the free spinning wheels cannot transfer the force to the plane because they are....free spinning. So the treadmill cannot physically counter the forward force created by the engines and keep it force moving forward.

Countertrey wrote:Still no news on the free agency or draft front.

I said:

If the aircraft rotates at 150 mph relative to the ground, the speed relative to the treadmill will be 300 mph...

You responded:

which makes the plane still stationary in relation to everything not on a tredmill

I would LOVE to see your math on this! The treadmill is running at 150 mph, the wheels are turning at 300 mph, but it remains motionless...
You may have solved a major mystery of quantum mechanics. You may want to tell Steven Hawking!

I thought Steven King was earmarked to get paid off this, next thing you know a cup with a pretty little pink straw and yellow "FLIPPER" will claim all copyright privileges and royalities

I think everyone's view on this depends on what side of the house they are on: fantasy or reality.

(First, throw out the fact that a treadmill big enough and with a fast enough belt could never be built)

Reality: The guys that say the plane will fly, argues that there is no realistic way that the tread mill could exert enough drag on the plane through the wheels to the bearings to the axle shafts of the landing gear to prevent the plane from moving forward. They claim (and I agree) that there is no possible way for the treadmill to exert that kind of force. In reality, either the tires would explode or the wheel bearings would seize if that would much force was exerted on them.

Fantasy: The people that say that the plane won't fly assume that the treadmill could exert as much force on the aircraft as the JET ENGINES and the plane would never gain any forward motion.

Both are correct! (Hypothetically) If you believe in realistic physics then the plane will fly. If you believe in the fantasy that thousands of pounds of thrust can be countered by the friction in the planes wheel bearings, then the plane won't fly.

So are you in the land of reality or fantasy?