- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Myth Busters/Can a plane take off on a conveyor belt
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:19 am to just me
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:19 am to just me
quote:
In tigerdroppings.com, there shall henceforth be a line of demarcation between intelligent posters and morons.
It shall be know as the karmapo1ice line.
But that would imply that I'm straddling the line of--- Heeeey!
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:22 am to just me
quote:
In tigerdroppings.com, there shall henceforth be a line of demarcation between intelligent posters and morons.
It shall be know as the karmapo1ice line.
It could be the boxcarbarney line... that way karma is on the right side. It took him about 10-12 posts to get it.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:22 am to Colonel Hapablap
quote:
I.e., presuming equal thrusts, it would take a slightly longer conveyor for the plane to achieve takeoff velocity.
Are you sure about this?
I'd say that it's possible the plane on the belt would take off slightly sooner if anything.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:23 am to LSUBoo
the beauty of the karma line is that one wouldn't expect him to get it (being a musician and all), but he did, pretty much right off.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:24 am to LSU Fan 90812
quote:
But that would imply that I'm straddling the line of--- Heeeey!
Well, if the mean intelligence of OT posters increases (remember this is a hypo) at a rate that is the equivalent of the rate at which Karma can grasp new concepts, does Karma get smarter?
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:24 am to Powerman
quote:
I'd say that it's possible the plane on the belt would take off slightly sooner if anything.
explain.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:25 am to Putty
quote:
Well, if the mean intelligence of OT posters increases (remember this is a hypo) at a rate that is the equivalent of the rate at which Karma can grasp new concepts, does Karma get smarter?
no.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:26 am to Colonel Hapablap
quote:
the beauty of the karma line is that one wouldn't expect him to get it (being a musician and all), but he did, pretty much right off.
This is a good point. I'm just afraid that if the karma line is the basis for intelligent/moronic posters on here... only about 7 people are above the line. (You're welcome karma, I just call it like I see it.)
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:27 am to LSUBoo
quote:
This is a good point. I'm just afraid that if the karma line is the basis for intelligent/moronic posters on here... only about 7 people are above the line. (You're welcome karma, I just call it like I see it.)
that's racist ... not all orientals are smart
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:29 am to LSUBoo
From this thread
me
just me
Boo
Putty (shocking, I know)
anyone else? Maybe GS, but he's more of a poliwaterboarder..
me
just me
Boo
Putty (shocking, I know)
anyone else? Maybe GS, but he's more of a poliwaterboarder..
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:29 am to Putty
quote:
that's racist ... not all orientals are smart
True, this board proves that as well.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:30 am to Colonel Hapablap
quote:
From this thread
the aggie guy who started it, surprisingly.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:31 am to Colonel Hapablap
quote:
explain.
I could be totally off base here
But as we know the wheels aren't used to get the plane into motion. The wheels are there for a few reasons:
1. Landing obviously
2. Since the plane starts on the ground it just needs something to allow it to travel at a quick linear speed. The most efficient choice is using wheels obviously.
The wheels provide a relatively low friction mechanism that allows the plane to move forward to get up to speed. (Obviously even without wheels the plane would move forward but at a much lower speed and would just be scraping the ground)
I think we can all agree that the belt doesn't actually impede the motion of the plane and that's why it takes off. Now, if the conveyor belt is moving really fast and the wheels aren't in park and are "loose" then the force required to get the plane in motion should be less, because you're dealing with kinetic friction which is obviously less than static friction.
i.e. I think it's at least plausible that at the instant of startup a fraction of a second could be shaved off because you'd be overcoming less friction to get the plane moving.
It's probably negligible and may be negated a bit by the motion of the belt, but it's not entirely insane I don't believe.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:34 am to Powerman
Interesting, but you're forgetting the part about the conveyor matching the instantaneous forward velocity of the fuseage. So the jets have to overcome static friction by themselves in both cases. Otherwise you might be right. It'd be an interesting question.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:37 am to Powerman
quote:
I think we can all agree that the belt doesn't actually impede the motion of the plane and that's why it takes off. Now, if the conveyor belt is moving really fast and the wheels aren't in park and are "loose" then the force required to get the plane in motion should be less, because you're dealing with kinetic friction which is obviously less than static friction.
The friction is question I think is more in the bearings that allow the wheels to rotate as frictionless as possible, as opposed to the friction between the tires and the treadmill/runway.
If the wheels are forced to rotate twice as fast as they would normally for the jet to takeoff, is the increased friction in the bearings going to slow the wheels down enough to create even a little static friction between the tires and the treadmill/runway?
Make any sense?
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:37 am to LSUBoo
quote:
This is a good point. I'm just afraid that if the karma line is the basis for intelligent/moronic posters on here... only about 7 people are above the line. (You're welcome karma, I just call it like I see it.)
and we owe it all to ms idabell!
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:38 am to Putty
When is that episode going to be broadcast?
BTW, I haven't posted on this thread in over a month, but I still say the plane will fly, and due to the slight increase in friction on the wheels it will take a very little more thrust and/or length on the runway to get airborne.
The key to understandng this is simply knowing that the wheels are not what moves the plane down the runway. It's the propellors/jet engines.
Think about a plane on pontoons that sits on the water. It can take off without wheels, the same as a plane with wheels, because the propellors do the pushing, not the wheels.
I don't know if that's gonna help anybody, but I just had to say it.
BTW, I haven't posted on this thread in over a month, but I still say the plane will fly, and due to the slight increase in friction on the wheels it will take a very little more thrust and/or length on the runway to get airborne.
The key to understandng this is simply knowing that the wheels are not what moves the plane down the runway. It's the propellors/jet engines.
Think about a plane on pontoons that sits on the water. It can take off without wheels, the same as a plane with wheels, because the propellors do the pushing, not the wheels.
I don't know if that's gonna help anybody, but I just had to say it.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:39 am to Powerman
quote:
think we can all agree that the belt doesn't actually impede the motion of the plane and that's why it takes off.
well, it does....just very minimally...how much depends on the coefficient of friction of the bearings
but what you're saying is that the friction of the wheels is "frontloaded" such that the friction which must be overcome to rotate the wheels one rotation from a stopped position is greater than the friction required to rotate it a second time as it is already moving? is this a purely friction question or is the second rotation essentially, friction - inertia? I have no idea. Obviously you're assuming that the wheels are spinning before any thrust is engaged? This would create some slight rearward motion which would probably more than counteract any "advantages" of "kinetic friction"
interesting take though
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:39 am to LSUBoo
I think he's talking about the internal static friction in the wheels. I.e., the force it'll take to get the wheels rolling.
Posted on 12/6/07 at 10:40 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
Think about a plane on pontoons that sits on the water. It can take off without wheels, the same as a plane with wheels, because the propellors do the pushing, not the wheels.
very, very good analogy . . . can a sea plane take off upriver
Page 14 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News