PDA

View Full Version : train on a pleadmill



M2morris
01-26-2008, 05:12 PM
Plane on a treadmill

FYI:

Discovery channel
Wednesday night
01/30/08
Myth Busters.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b206/planegeek/takeoff2.gif

xTHRUDx
01-26-2008, 08:34 PM
trailer for the episode

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSBFQOfas60

roybaty
01-30-2008, 07:59 AM
Tonight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kauzio
01-30-2008, 09:59 AM
It's not really a myth though is it?

Anyone who actually thinks about it sensibly will see that the plane will takeoff (unless it has the worlds weakest engine, combined with very badly lubricated wheels, in which case it probably wouldn't take off from a runway anyway).

Whirlin_merlin
01-30-2008, 10:05 AM
I can't believe how sad I am but I can't wait to know what happens.
I'm almost entirly certain it will move forward (not proposing vertical take off!) and take off. Of course until the experiment is done one should never be 100% certain, however unless I've grossly underestimated the frictional forces in the wheel bearings I'm confident.

I would say that this implies full (take-off) thrust is used if they deliberatly use only enough thrust to try to keep the plane staitonary then obviously it won't fly.

Urufu_Shinjiro
01-30-2008, 11:57 AM
This thread will be 20 + pages long by this time tomarrow, lol.

xTHRUDx
01-30-2008, 12:13 PM
were did all the posts go? this thread was 2+ pages yesterday. how and why were they deleted?

Von_Rat
01-30-2008, 12:19 PM
the posts were lost when the ubi server hamster died on its treadmill.

rumor has it that it was trying to reach take off velocity when its aorta burst. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

roybaty
01-30-2008, 01:05 PM
http://www.geocities.com/roybaty2000/images/hammy9987.jpg

xTHRUDx
01-30-2008, 02:14 PM
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/5889/11311351045171tt.jpg

Von_Rat
01-30-2008, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by roybaty:
http://www.geocities.com/roybaty2000/images/hammy9987.jpg

LOL

Urufu_Shinjiro
01-30-2008, 09:03 PM
I just have one thing to say to the "plane won't take off" people, just saw mythbusters and, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
.......BUSTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

jadger
01-30-2008, 09:18 PM
WTF!!! I went to watch it on Discovery channel and it wasn't on as promised, 9PM EST and what was on? a rerun of dirty jobs, maybe it's the fact that I'm in Canada so it might be a different discovery channel, but that pisses me off.

roybaty
01-30-2008, 09:18 PM
It didn't keep pace with the wheels...not busted.

Pffffttt!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

arjisme
01-30-2008, 10:19 PM
You must be talking about a different myth. The plane on a treadmill myth is BUSTED!!

Whirlin_merlin
01-31-2008, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by roybaty:
It didn't keep pace with the wheels...not busted.

Pffffttt!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Have you been paying any attention, that's been the whole point all along.

THE BELT CANNOT STOP THE PLANE MOVING FORWARD.

Nobody was ever arguing that the plane could take off if it remained 'staitonary' all the argument was that it would still move forward.

And BTW the myth/riddle never said the belt keeps pace with the wheels. It said the belt speed matches the plane speed.

na85
01-31-2008, 01:03 AM
So... wait, did they actually attempt to take off in the plane?

M_Gunz
01-31-2008, 01:17 AM
Doesn't the guy say right on the trailer that he's going to keep the plane going just enough to
match the speed of the belt?

Yup he says it, matching speed exactly "and there's no air going over the wings"....

major_setback
01-31-2008, 01:33 AM
Wheels are free rolling so I'd say it would be impossible to match their speed, they are bound to move faster than the belt. The thing is the belt can't keep up with the wheels speed. No matter how fast you pulled the belt back from under the plane it would just roll those free-rolling wheels, and have no effect whatsoever on the planes foreward movement once it's going.

willyvic
01-31-2008, 06:32 AM
Bump for the tivo crowd because I KNOW there are a lot more responses to this out there. I mean, c'mon, the naysayers were lined up around the block in the original thread.


WV.

Urufu_Shinjiro
01-31-2008, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by willyvic:
Bump for the tivo crowd because I KNOW there are a lot more responses to this out there. I mean, c'mon, the naysayers were lined up around the block in the original thread.


WV.

QFT! Where is everyone? Did the cat get your tongue (and fly off a treadmill with it, lol!)?

Urufu_Shinjiro
01-31-2008, 11:28 AM
Seriously? Noone? There were like 20 page threads on this before, you guys are ruining my gloating ability here, lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif.

MEGILE
01-31-2008, 11:31 AM
Snakes on a mfin plane

Urufu_Shinjiro
01-31-2008, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
Snakes on a mfin plane

I can picture the snakes now, just slithering their little hearts out on treadmills, lol!

M_Gunz
01-31-2008, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by major_setback:
Wheels are free rolling so I'd say it would be impossible to match their speed, they are bound to move faster than the belt. The thing is the belt can't keep up with the wheels speed. No matter how fast you pulled the belt back from under the plane it would just roll those free-rolling wheels, and have no effect whatsoever on the planes foreward movement once it's going.

All he has to do to do how he said (the pilot on the trailer) is look out the side and give
it just enough to not move relative to some fixed object.

Uhhh, there is some friction IRL and it's more than high pressure bicycle tires.

Of course if the man says one thing and then does another, all bets are off. His words,
no air over the wings, should say enough.

Just watched on Youtube and how about that, standard Discovery Channel say one thing and
do another. Nice takeoff though his speed relative to the belt was 2x the belt speed.

This ranks up there with the tires rolled down the ski jump.

arjisme
01-31-2008, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
All he has to do to do how he said (the pilot on the trailer) is look out the side and give
it just enough to not move relative to some fixed object.

Of course if the man says one thing and then does another, all bets are off. His words,
no air over the wings, should say enough.

Just watched on Youtube and how about that, standard Discovery Channel say one thing and
do another. Nice takeoff though his speed relative to the belt was 2x the belt speed.

This ranks up there with the tires rolled down the ski jump. You're not alone in reading into the original myth conditions that weren't stated and that is where most of the argument really lies. You're making assumptions that are incorrect. The myth doesn't state that the plane is stationary. It just says the treadmill matches the plane's speed, but moves in the opposite direction. That is what the Mythbusters tested and they showed the plane will take off.

But if we change the myth to say the pilot attempts to keep the plane stationary when the treadmill is moving, well that is something different and could be done (in real world conditions). But, if that was the myth, you'd have to wonder why it every asked if the plane would take off. Clearly in that situation the entire goal is to keep the plane stationary. And, except of Harriers or something similar, a stationary plane will not fly. Duh.

arjisme
01-31-2008, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
All he has to do to do how he said (the pilot on the trailer) is look out the side and give
it just enough to not move relative to some fixed object.

Of course if the man says one thing and then does another, all bets are off. His words,
no air over the wings, should say enough.

Just watched on Youtube and how about that, standard Discovery Channel say one thing and
do another. Nice takeoff though his speed relative to the belt was 2x the belt speed.

This ranks up there with the tires rolled down the ski jump. You're not alone in reading into the original myth conditions that weren't stated and that is where most of the argument really lies. You're making assumptions that are incorrect. The myth doesn't state that the plane is stationary. It just says the treadmill matches the plane's speed, but moves in the opposite direction. That is what the Mythbusters tested and they showed the plane will take off.

But if we change the myth to say the pilot attempts to keep the plane stationary when the treadmill is moving, well that is something different and could be done (in real world conditions). But, if that was the myth, you'd have to wonder why it ever asked if the plane would take off. Clearly in that situation the entire goal is to keep the plane stationary. And, except for Harriers or something similar, a stationary plane will not fly. Duh.

Whirlin_merlin
01-31-2008, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by major_setback:
Wheels are free rolling so I'd say it would be impossible to match their speed, they are bound to move faster than the belt. The thing is the belt can't keep up with the wheels speed. No matter how fast you pulled the belt back from under the plane it would just roll those free-rolling wheels, and have no effect whatsoever on the planes foreward movement once it's going.

All he has to do to do how he said (the pilot on the trailer) is look out the side and give
it just enough to not move relative to some fixed object.

Uhhh, there is some friction IRL and it's more than high pressure bicycle tires.

Of course if the man says one thing and then does another, all bets are off. His words,
no air over the wings, should say enough.

Just watched on Youtube and how about that, standard Discovery Channel say one thing and
do another. Nice takeoff though his speed relative to the belt was 2x the belt speed.

This ranks up there with the tires rolled down the ski jump. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does the M stand for muppet Gunz?

Of course if the plane is staitonary (relative to the air) it wont take off.
Who said it would? Not I.
The whole ruddy point for the nth time is that the c'belt won't keep the plane staitonary (relative to the air).

Yes he could have used only a tiny weenie icle bit of throttle to 'just' counter the friction in the wheel bearings but no plane could take off with such a throttle setting, it would have been daft.

The pilot got it wrong in what he thought would happen, he assumed the belt would counter the planes motion as if it were a car, which of course it didn't for reasons that many have explained at great length.

Written post booze so expect bad spelling and grumpiness.

han freak solo
01-31-2008, 06:13 PM
Dang. I thought today was Wednesday. I missed the whole thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Urufu_Shinjiro
01-31-2008, 06:26 PM
Youtube is your friend http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
01-31-2008, 06:39 PM
Let me simplify it so you can see that yes I do understand just fine.

The original 'definition' could be taken at least two ways.

1) motion of plane relative to the belt

2) motion of the plane relative to the air

I do believe we know what happens in either case.

There is at least one video showing the first case on the internet to demonstrate that motion
relative to the belt does not require more real power as the speed of the belt increases.

The original 'question' can be taken in at least two ways as well.

The whole two ways thing is really the result of loose use of the language which has been a
bleeding Hallmark of the internet in the last 15+ years and among people through history.
We're supposed to learn better by HS at the latest but sadly many never get that far.

I hope it's easy enough to see that arguing for view 1 or view 2 is futile no matter what
who said. I view it as the pilot did not match the speed of the belt but it's equally
valid to say he did thanks to the magic of poor language use.

Anyone who can only see it one way, by their own interpretation... oh well!

han freak solo
01-31-2008, 07:25 PM
I guess I never knew how the myth was "officially" stated.

I thought the whole purpose of the conveyor belt was to zero the ground speed and airspeed of the aircraft.

Otherwise, who gives a chit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

arjisme
01-31-2008, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Let me simplify it so you can see that yes I do understand just fine.

The original 'definition' could be taken at least two ways.

1) motion of plane relative to the belt

2) motion of the plane relative to the air
The situation as I have always seen it put says the belt automatically adjusts its speed to that of the plane. This leaves open and even implies that the plane can change its speed and the belt will match it.

Don't forget there are TWO speeds to take into account in this riddle: the plane's and the belt's. The only situation I can find where they both match when their speeds are measured against each other is when neither moves at all.

But that doesn't fit well with the original description since it references the belt adjusting its speed to match the plane's. It strongly implies that the plane is free to change its speed and the belt will match. A plane on the ground initiates an increase in its speed (however measured) by increasing its throttle. When it does this, it only makes sense to measure both the plane's and the belt's speed in relation to the ground if the belt is to behave according to the riddle.

However, it really doesn't matter how you measure the speeds once you allow that the plane can apply throttle. A plane on a conveyer belt, no matter what speed the conveyer belt is said to be moving, will take off at full throttle.

Whirlin_merlin
02-01-2008, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Let me simplify it so you can see that yes I do understand just fine.

The original 'definition' could be taken at least two ways.

1) motion of plane relative to the belt

2) motion of the plane relative to the air

I do believe we know what happens in either case.

There is at least one video showing the first case on the internet to demonstrate that motion
relative to the belt does not require more real power as the speed of the belt increases.

The original 'question' can be taken in at least two ways as well.

The whole two ways thing is really the result of loose use of the language which has been a
bleeding Hallmark of the internet in the last 15+ years and among people through history.
We're supposed to learn better by HS at the latest but sadly many never get that far.

I hope it's easy enough to see that arguing for view 1 or view 2 is futile no matter what
who said. I view it as the pilot did not match the speed of the belt but it's equally
valid to say he did thanks to the magic of poor language use.

Anyone who can only see it one way, by their own interpretation... oh well!

Stop trying to be so clever, it's much simplier than that. Of course someone could interpret the riddle to mean that the plane is kept motionless relative to it's surroundings. However such an interpretation is based on not understanding that the c'belt can't do that. If the riddle refered to a magic c'belt that could magically hold the plane in one place you would have a point. Even the pilot on MB got this wrong by assuming that the tarp could keep the plane staitionary relative to the air.

han freak solo
02-01-2008, 07:56 AM
Hmmm. After watching the video again, I'm actually impressed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Regardless of technicalities of the "myth", it was clear that the plane's wheels, which have no forward drive, aren't even bothered by the fact that the propellor will overcome whatever the conveyor belt is doing.

Those vid clips on the web with toy planes on treadmills just confused the issue since the toy planes were never allowed to give full thrust, even if the treadmill could go 100 miles per hour. The length of a home treadmill is limiting too, since the toy plane could probably outrun it by building its own airspeed.

I swear, if my brain wasn't the size of a pea, I'd have probably figured this out long ago. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

M_Gunz
02-01-2008, 08:52 AM
Stated correctly, the belt will not keep the plane from taking off.

Stated with limiting conditions, match this to that, the result becomes relative.

This is why in legal, scientific and engineering the definition before the do becomes extremely
important. If you've ever made a contract to do a job and been BURNED on details then you have
experience in the kinds of games that make forum debates look amateur. Just add money and see.

OTOH if you are married or have a live-in for long at all then you probably know just as well.

arjisme
02-01-2008, 09:08 AM
The original problem:

"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 the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?"

Please explain how all the conditions of this riddle can be met when measuring the speed of the plane and the conveyor relative to something other than the ground. Specifically, measure the plane's speed in relation to the belt. Your choice how to measure the belt's speed.

I_KG100_Prien
02-01-2008, 12:21 PM
Don't know why people are trying to argue, when it's clear that someone will not be proven wrong by anybody.

Just going to be another long thread full of straw-men and semantics.

Someone needs to post a cheerleader pic or, or a silly cat picture to make this threat SOMEWHAT worth it.

jadger
02-01-2008, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
Don't know why people are trying to argue, when it's clear that someone will not be proven wrong by anybody.

Just going to be another long thread full of straw-men and semantics.

Someone needs to post a cheerleader pic or, or a silly cat picture to make this threat SOMEWHAT worth it.

how about neither, this isn't a silly cat pic or cheerleaders.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c131/tool_satanic/Endbadlyverybadly.jpg

han freak solo
02-01-2008, 01:40 PM
Rah, rah.

http://www.texansrock.com/files/images/medium_texan_cheerleaders01.jpg

han freak solo
02-01-2008, 01:41 PM
http://images.burntorangenation.com/images/admin/texaschaps.jpg

arjisme
02-01-2008, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
Don't know why people are trying to argue, when it's clear that someone will not be proven wrong by anybody. Not necessarily. In the previous (very long) thread we had on this forum on this topic, I was originally a convinced member of the "it will not fly" camp. I then finally realized I was wrong. The arguments of other posters convinced me. It can happen.

I_KG100_Prien
02-01-2008, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
Don't know why people are trying to argue, when it's clear that someone will not be proven wrong by anybody. Not necessarily. In the previous (very long) thread we had on this forum on this topic, I was originally a convinced member of the "it will not fly" camp. I then finally realized I was wrong. The arguments of other posters convinced me. It can happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I was referring to one person in specific, but didn't want to specifically mention any one persons name, in specific, to be precise.

roybaty
02-01-2008, 02:47 PM
I'm right...raaid will back me up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
02-01-2008, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by ar****e:
The original problem:

"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 the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?"

Please explain how all the conditions of this riddle can be met when measuring the speed of the plane and the conveyor relative to something other than the ground. Specifically, measure the plane's speed in relation to the belt. Your choice how to measure the belt's speed.

I had not seen it stated so. In that case sure the plane will take off.
I HAD seen it perhaps mis-stated before and by the terms there the plane would not.

What's the BFD?
I for one am not saying that the belt would keep the plane from making airspeed.
That was proven BEFORE Wednesday easier, quicker and cheaper than the Discovery crew did.

This must be one of those things where everyone is supposed to line up and dance the same....

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-01-2008, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
The original problem:

"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 the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?"

Please explain how all the conditions of this riddle can be met when measuring the speed of the plane and the conveyor relative to something other than the ground. Specifically, measure the plane's speed in relation to the belt. Your choice how to measure the belt's speed.

I had not seen it stated so. In that case sure the plane will take off.
I HAD seen it perhaps mis-stated before and by the terms there the plane would not.

What's the BFD?
I for one am not saying that the belt would keep the plane from making airspeed.
That was proven BEFORE Wednesday easier, quicker and cheaper than the Discovery crew did.

This must be one of those things where everyone is supposed to line up and dance the same.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, it seems like you were simply in the wrong camp by mistake. The argument arises because there are some that think the treadmil WILL keep the plane from making airspeed. I'm sure about 30-40% of the "it won't fly" camp are like you and simply misunderstood the poorly worded myth, the others just don't know physics from a hole in the ground, lol.

Billy_BigBoy
02-01-2008, 03:45 PM
The discussion will NOT be over yet, or ever.

But it was a good show nontheless.
Although one question remains for me: When the modelplane took off it looked like the takeoff distance was shorter on the conveyer than without the conveyer. But there was not a word on the distance of the real thing on the conveyer. Was it shorter? I don't think so.
Why? When the model had some friction on the wheels it needed more power to keep up, so more air over the wings and that way more lift. But for the real airplane that factor is ruled out because of the weight and the higher speed for lift of. Does that make sense?

M_Gunz
02-02-2008, 01:31 AM
Apparently I'm supposed to take a side and believe only that way to see exists or I am stupid.


Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
Ok, it seems like you were simply in the wrong camp by mistake.

I'm not in any camp, can't you see that?


The argument arises because there are some that think the treadmil WILL keep the plane from making airspeed. I'm sure about 30-40% of the "it won't fly" camp are like you

I stated plainly that depending on HOW you run the definition it would or would not fly.
I stated plainly that the belt would not be able to stop the plane from being able to take off.
WTF MORE do you need?


and simply misunderstood the poorly worded myth,

Unlike YOU I understand that more than one definition had been explained on the net.

I can accept that one or more were incorrect statements as well and still accept that they
were made. My eyes and mind are not so closed as yours.

WHY can't you accept that I wrote IF we go by certain view THEN no takeoff is not the same
as saying that BY the other view teh plane will take off?


the others just don't know physics from a hole in the ground, lol.

Okay, make your unqualified assertions based on your own one-sided, self-fixated view.

By your words after my earlier statements you just don't know LOGIC or the hole in your butt
from the holes in your head since you like to talk out of your butt.