Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Gold Board' started by Bolter, Feb 2, 2008.
The wierd kid with the shaved head isn't showing
Mark the treadmill only turns the wheels, it has no effect on the plane.
Yeah, and the tarpaulin it's on, is moving in the opposite direction at the same time, or did you not pay attention to that bit?
Ergo, you can see that the plane moves forward, despite the tarpaulin moving in the opposite direction, hence, it has no effect.
Regarding roller skates on a treadmill, you admit that by someone pushing your back, you can remain stationary on the treadmill.
Now, put that theory in an airport, on the moving conveyor belt for the lazy people.
Stand at the start...have your mate apply force to your back, from teh non moving side of the walkway. You can remain stationary...now have him keep pushing and walk along the walkway...you move with him...which means, that the plane will do the same thing and can be pushed by its own engines, fast enough to generate lift.
we were having a row about this today its such a stupid argument to get in to but fun
What I think you are aiming at, is the plane going straight up like a harrier jump jet.
This is not what the question ask. It asks if the plane takes of, it doesn't say in which way though.
If you stand on a treadmill with rollerskates, u will stand still (forget all bearing friction)
<- + -> = no movement, the 2 cancel each other out
If a person then pushes you, there is another force involved which the treadmill wont compensate for.
<-<- + -> = movement forward
See, now that is just confusing the issue, you cant "forget" the bearing issue, even to try and simplify the answer.
If you stand on a treadmill with roller skates on and don't hold on to the handles or have something applying force to your back, you will go backwards, or more likely fall ass over tit.
This is because your weight, is locking the axles, so the wheels wont turn.
Well, AFAIK, the chopper has an engine which turns the main rotor above...this obviously, is on a shaft, which again runs through a bearing.
Choppers also have a tail rotor, the job of this, is to give lateral force, in order to counteract the tendency for the body wanting to spin, due to the torque of the shaft rotating in the bearing.
Obviously, this is not required when the chopper is on the ground (assuming its not ice, water etc) as the skids should provide sufficient friction to maintain the chopper from spinning.
So likewise, when on the roundabout it will grip (mind you I dont know how long for, as we are now talking about centrifugal force and the fact of the air resistance against the body of the chopper as the roundabout spins).
So, the chopper will spin with the roundabout, the blades will spin as normal because they are independent of the roundabout, and the tail rotor will spin as normal.
However, I think that once the rotor has created enough lift, then it would go out of control, inches above the roundabout, due to the loss of grip on the skids.
But really, it could never happen...if the body of the chopper were to spin anywhere near as fast as the main rotor it would just fall over and smash itself to bits.
I wouldn't want to be the poor cnut inside!
EDIT: Right, this occurred to me while eating some cake. It's not Helicopter cake, nor is it on a roundabout, but the plate is round AND, has "Supper, Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner" written on it in that order.
The tail rotor is key here.
Can the tail rotor generate enough air movement, in the right direction, to make the skids slide over the roundabout?
In other words, can it overcome the friction, between the skids and the roundabout?
If it can, then at some point, the this will enable the chopper to maintain a straight line, then lift off will only be slightly affected, when it leaves the spinning roundabout?
EDIT: I notice no replies yet...are you all Googling or something?
i'm thinking c... though i'm not sure if it's because i believe it to be c... or just want it to be c so there is lot's of pretty fireworks
The plane (if ive got this right) isnt actually moving anywhere if the conveyabelt is moving equal in the opposite direction, therefore the movement forward is virtually nothing.
This therefore means that no air is flowing over the wing surface and would not allow the aircraft to gain the airflow needed for flight.
Without the airflow, it is basically a jet propelled car with wings.
a) why hasnt such an invention been used in real life if this were to work, i.e an aircraft carrier or such for faster jets.
b) imagine yourself running on a treadmill, think how much air is getting thrown in your face in comparison to running on a street. There is a huge difference between the two.
Compare the situation for a Jumbo.
The only arguable alternative in my opinion is if the jets engines were pointed at the ground, in which case, the thrust would be capable of allowing the aircraft to clear the runway with thrust only, much like a harrier jet or a JSF (F-35) [for all you military nerds]
This is my theory if iv grasped the whole concept of the situation correctly
Edit: although, looking at some previous posts, if you want to go into detail of the plane not moving without thrust due to the fact it has weels, then its dependant on lots of physics stuff, which, even though im kinda bored, i cant really be arsed working out. Why would you want to do physics on a sunday evening. I sure as hell wouldnt want to do it any other day...
You have your pro's and con's mixed up as well as the direction of the treadmill.
Read the first 10 pages mate