Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Gold Board' started by Bolter, Feb 2, 2008.
cheers, it took me a while to see how it worked - i was arguing the same for a while.
Just to give you boost to fill 3 more pages:
2 airplane mechs and a pilot I asked said it would not take off if the treadmill moved in such a speed that would make the plane stay still
I suppose theorectically, that is true....
If the treadmill did move at such a speed that the plane stayed still then it wouldn't fly as there would be no air over the wings....
However practically, there isn't any speed that the treadmill could go which would mean that the plane would stay still and so it goes soaring of into the sunset
In the same sense, practically, there is no such treadmill at all
Pyrolx, read the original question.
Nowhere does it say that the plane stays still. If you're giving a question to airplane techs and pilots you should give the correct facts, then you will get a correct answer.
But strange as it may seem there is a right and wrong answer
Nothing happens, they pilot is dead from starvation from waiting for people to make their mind up.
if it goes with the same speed as the plane we have:
70Mph VS 70 Mph
Math says that 70 - 70 = 0. 0 speed = 0 movement. But then again, if the plane's speed is aerial speed, and the plane's panel measures wheel speed, the manufacturer is wrong in the first place.
Bah who cares anyway, I like my planes on steady tarmac.
P.S. coming to thing of it, since the wheels and the plane are attached, aerial speed is analogue to the wheel speed's spin time (until the weight has been eliminated). You just cant have these 2 as 2 totally independent parts.
ANYWAYS. Ill shut up now.
you're looking at different speeds... you need to not think in euclidean relativistic maths it's too restricting
(and yes i am just using big words for the hell of it.... )
You're looking at the wrong way matey, and i think you're getting to consumed with proving yourself right than to realise and work out why you're wrong.
A plane moves by grabbing air in front of it and throwing that air backwards, it does not use the ground to drive itself along therefore the ground is irrelevant to how a plane gets it's speed. That's the whole point of the riddle!
It's been explained really well by a few people and you've even seen proof on youtube where a few people actually done it! can't see how you can still dispute it to be honest in light of that?
if you can't work it out, no worries it is a tough one
I vote this thread for gold board (at least it'll be locked then!)
Would this work if the converyor belt was replaced with an escalator in Marks and Spencers, and the aeroplane was replaced with a person?
Then I'm not going to Marks and Spencers.
I wouldn't either.
PS> when's russell going to do another walk-on day
It's been a long time since I was down there to be honest so I haven't much idea. It got too expensive (and too much work) to have walk-on days there so we've moved elsewhere now.
To keep the thread on track, those youtube videos are fake.
I think we should all club together, buy an airfeild, a 747 and a really big convayor belt and try this out.
A car is propelled forward by the friction (grip) between the engine driven wheels and the ground it sits upon.
A plane is not propelled by this, it is instead propelled by a huge displacement of air. In fact, the friction between the plane and the ground is almost zero.
The only effect moving the runway the opposite way as fast as the plane is moving forward would have is that wheels on the plane will spin twice as fast. The plane will still move and fly...
Strangely enough, a plane on skis and a flying boat will have more trouble taking off, as they suffer from a whole lot more friction from the surface they are sitting on.
Therein lies the clue kiddoes: Friction. The friction between a regular plane (on wheels) and the runway is negligable. And anybody with a modicum of understanding of basic physics will be able to tell you that therefore it is of no influence on the forward motion, or better the force moving the other way.
Remember, F=M.A, both ways. F is the force moving the plane forward and that equals the mass of the moving body mulitplied with its acceleration.
Since we're talking about one plane, M is a constant. If the plane were to remain stationary, it would mean that the decceleration has to be equal to the accelaration. HOWEVER.... since the plane has no friction with the ground, the F going the other way is a big fat zero... And since the mass of the plane has not changed, A has to be another big fat zero. Sorry boys, you lose. Simple math and physics proves you wrong. You may as well argue that the Earth is a cube.
And no, I did not have to google or wiki this, I had physics in school.
Yeah, but it isn't the friction between the wheels and runway, its the friction between the bearings in the wheel and the axle they run on.
It's the friction between reality and the brains of some people here.