ChiefsPlanet - Life Pick 5 posters you'd like to have dinner with.

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- -

Pick 5 posters you'd like to have dinner with. (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=212553)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider (Post 6000682)

There are several on here I would still like to meet, and would enjoy seeing those I have met again. That list used to include JOhn :shake:

:)

ROFL

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 6000710)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're arguing (like everyone else apparently). Are you saying that a treadmill couldn't essentially "launch" the plane by moving in the same direction because the wheels would spin and the plane wouldn't move?

I'm saying that a plane sitting on a treadmill with its wheels unlock and free to spin would not take-off if the treadmill were accelerated to a speed normally required for lift-off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 6000710)

That's a very different argument than the one I think everyone else is talking about - that a plane could take off under its own power while a treadmill was under it and moving in the opposite direction.

That wouldn't work, either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding (Post 6000475)

I would literally eat dinner with anyone on this site, excluding: RoR and MV.

Since the only two people from CP I've met in real life are TinyE and Bill Parcells (D2112 / BP [whatever hes calling himself now]) I would have to put them on top of my list though since I can vouch for them being real cool guys.

haha you didn't list me. Raised On Riots must be a big douchebag if you would rather have dinner with me then him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat (Post 6000721)

I never do well in these popularity contests. :sulk:

And I failed physics. Badly. :sulk:

OK, yet another person to add to my list

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 6000723)

I didn't even know there was a question about his version, honestly.

Me neither, but his answers make a whole lot more sense when you realize what hes arguing.

Pretty much the wheels could be moving forward at lets say 50 mph, while the treadmill moves backwards at 50 mph, but that doesn't mean the airplane is stagnant, its still moving forward.

I think...

This is too damn confusing. Sorry for jacking your thread

did anyone pick me yet-young single girls.......... anyone??..........

crickets

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay (Post 6000728)

haha you didn't list me. Raised On Riots must be a big douchebag if you would rather have dinner with me then him.

Yesterday you said that I was ok with you, so you are okay with me. Just because we don't agree on rappers or football teams doesn't mean we cant be civil.

I can actually fit 12 for dinner at my place.

I give up. Too many things to do.

I don't know why I'm still going.

If the plane had a rolling start, then the treadmill caught up to the speed of the wheels, technically the wheels and treadmill could be moving at the exact opposite velocity of eachother, yet the plane would still be moving forward due to momentum, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding (Post 6000732)

I may have confused people by mentioning the wheels, but I did so for good reason. If the wheels were locked and the treadmill accelerated to lift-off speed (and the plane didn't slide off or skid), then the plane would fly, becuase it achieved enough forward velocity to provide sufficient lift for flight. Essentially a catapult.

If the wheel are free to spin, the plane would not move at all and therefore the wings would produce no lift.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger (Post 6000744)

I was assuming the treadmill was going the opposite direction of the way the plane was trying to go.

ROFL - some sites have banned all discussion of the AoaT question. The fundamental ambiguity at the heart of the controversy is below.

http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-...amn-treadmill/

http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/treadmill_diagram.png

Quote:

2. vC=vW: That is, if the axle is moving forward (relative to the ground, not the treadmill) at 5 m/s, the treadmill moves backward at 5 m/s. This is physically plausible. All it means is that the wheels will spin twice as fast as normal, but that won’t stop the plane from taking off. People who subscribe to this interpretation tend to assume the people who disagree with them think airplanes are powered by their wheels.

3. vC=vW+vB: What if we hook up a speedometer to the wheel, and make the treadmill spin backward as fast as the speedometer says the plane is going forward? Then the “speedometer speed” would be vW+vB — the relative speed of the wheel over the treadmill. This is, for example, how a car-on–a-treadmill setup would work. This is the assumption that most of the ’stationary plane’ people subscribe to. The problem with this is that it’s an ill-defined system. For non-slip tires, vB=vC. So vC=vW+vC. If we make vW positive, there is no value vC can take to make the equation true. (For those stubbornly clinging to vestiges of reality, in a system where the treadmill responds via a PID controller, the result would be the treadmill quickly spinning up to infinity.) So, in this system, the plane cannot have a nonzero speed. (We’ll call this the “JetBlue” scenario.)

But if we push with the engines, what happens? The terms of the problem tell us that the plane cannot have a nonzero speed, but there’s no physical mechanism that would plausibly make this happen. The treadmill could spin the wheels, but the acceleration would destroy them before it stopped the plane. The problem is basically asking “what happens if you take a plane that can’t move and move it?” It might intrigue literary critics, but it’s a poor physics question.

So basically, those in the 'won't fly' camp read the conditions to require that the axle -->wheel -->airplance have no forward momentum, otherwise the treadmill isn't actually 'mirroring' the airplane's efforts. They aren't concerned with the practical side, where the jet engines will accelerate the wheel/treadmill apparatus to infinite speed [not fast, not really fast, but infinite, as in increasing exponentially without end], and the system fails.

DUDE. Donger. If you put a plane on a treadmill and engaged the engine, it will create thrust and move the body of the plane, regardless of WTF the wheels are doing, off of the treadmill, and take the fugg off.

The plane DOES NOT get it's speed from the wheels. It gets it from thrust created by the engines (prop, turbo prop, or jet, typically). When the engines are engaged, the wheels would just spin faster than the treadmill and taxi off.
Posted via Mobile Device

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding (Post 6000743)

It would immediately begin to decelerate until its ground speed became zero. It's the same basic concept as DaFace's scenario above:

"that a plane could take off under its own power while a treadmill was under it and moving in the opposite direction"

In that scenario, the forward motion of the plane is precisely the opposite of the force being applied by the treadmill. Therefore, they cancel each other and the relative ground speed of the plane is zero = no lift = no flight.