OK... can we can group "no-flyers" along with flat earthers, birthers, moon landing conspiracists and juggalos? We can hold an awesome party for them. And then we can burn the house down and cleanse the gene pool.
Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,388
- 80,839
Woulnd't want to leave you unfulfilled Tuco. As fast as necessary so rolling friction overcame forward thrust <3
Gravel
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 39,409
- 129,646
Or, the wheels don't do anything, and would just start moving in the opposite direction while the engine causes the plane to move forward. The wheels will freely spin however fast the treadmill is going until they reach a point where they're structurally unsound and break off the plane. The wheels aren't connected to the drive train in a plane. They're just there.
Fun fact: The ASTB (test required to become a Naval Officer) section that deals with aviation has a question similar to this.
Fun fact: The ASTB (test required to become a Naval Officer) section that deals with aviation has a question similar to this.
I am a gentle soul.
Let me help Tuco out.
What is a treadmill?
2.An exercise machine, typically with a continuous belt, that allows one to walk or run in place.
The essence of using a treadmill is to"...run in place."
Extrapolating this to a machine(auto or airplane) the treadmill sets the speed, and the person or machine matches it, but the essential component of this entire exercise is that the person or machine"...run(s) in place."
A plane on a treadmill would produce enough power to"...run in place."If it produces too much or too little power it would exit the treadmill (either forward or backward) and would therefore not be on the treadmill, effectively ending the exercise. For the point of the question the plane must remain on the treadmill while"...run(ning) in place."
As long as the exercise is ongoing(that is the plane is"...run(ning) in place.") there will be no forward motion of the plane (it is"...run(ning) in place.")
With no forward motion of the plane, there will be no airflow over the planes lifting surfaces(the wings) and therefore the plane will not take off.
Mythbusters variation was crap! That scientists allowed them leave with that shoddy experiment was shameful. That the show's producers hoodwinked the masses with that pseudo proof was disgraceful. That those who put this video forward as proof are unable to see that it is hogwash is sad. That a moderator was so easily gulled by this video to cast aspersions on those who saw through mythbuster's charade is pitiful. That the moderator's retinue slavishly fawned on his actions without realizing that he was in error poorly reflects on said retinue.
Mythbuster's video was garbage. If a treadmill is acting as a treadmill in the way a treadmill is defined to act, and a plane is using said treadmill in the way that a treadmill is historically used,
that plane, while on the treadmill and"...run(ning) in place",
will not fly.
Let me help Tuco out.
What is a treadmill?
2.An exercise machine, typically with a continuous belt, that allows one to walk or run in place.
The essence of using a treadmill is to"...run in place."
Extrapolating this to a machine(auto or airplane) the treadmill sets the speed, and the person or machine matches it, but the essential component of this entire exercise is that the person or machine"...run(s) in place."
A plane on a treadmill would produce enough power to"...run in place."If it produces too much or too little power it would exit the treadmill (either forward or backward) and would therefore not be on the treadmill, effectively ending the exercise. For the point of the question the plane must remain on the treadmill while"...run(ning) in place."
As long as the exercise is ongoing(that is the plane is"...run(ning) in place.") there will be no forward motion of the plane (it is"...run(ning) in place.")
With no forward motion of the plane, there will be no airflow over the planes lifting surfaces(the wings) and therefore the plane will not take off.
Mythbusters variation was crap! That scientists allowed them leave with that shoddy experiment was shameful. That the show's producers hoodwinked the masses with that pseudo proof was disgraceful. That those who put this video forward as proof are unable to see that it is hogwash is sad. That a moderator was so easily gulled by this video to cast aspersions on those who saw through mythbuster's charade is pitiful. That the moderator's retinue slavishly fawned on his actions without realizing that he was in error poorly reflects on said retinue.
Mythbuster's video was garbage. If a treadmill is acting as a treadmill in the way a treadmill is defined to act, and a plane is using said treadmill in the way that a treadmill is historically used,
that plane, while on the treadmill and"...run(ning) in place",
will not fly.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,388
- 80,839
hahahaaNext problem gentlemen.
It might take off if you put the helicopter on casters
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 46,383
- 98,551
If your wheels are providing enough friction to keep the plane from moving forward you need to get off that plane designed by retards and build by Chinese retards.
TheBeagle
JunkiesNetwork Donor
- 8,744
- 30,382
Hah we actually had to work out that problem in Physics I. I always jump up when I'm in an elevator going down.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,388
- 80,839
PM from OB:
I question your assumption of the rolling resistance of the wheels being .204. I would bet it's closer to .02. Are you confusing the friction coefficient with rolling resistance? Because this problem assumes that the parking brake isn't on =P
Bro I'm not trolling, I actually wanted to know how fast the treadmill would have to go.ObservantBastard_sl said:
I question your assumption of the rolling resistance of the wheels being .204. I would bet it's closer to .02. Are you confusing the friction coefficient with rolling resistance? Because this problem assumes that the parking brake isn't on =P
No, I found an equation for the coefficient that varies with velocity. It is affected by tire pressure (which affects the non-round contact patch size I assume) and the square of velocity.
So at practical rolling speeds it is very low. But when velocity increases it does go up.
So at practical rolling speeds it is very low. But when velocity increases it does go up.
And I did screw the pooch earlier and conflate different concepts. The only thing that would keep it stationary on the treadmill is the rolling friction/resistance at extremely high wheel speed. The speed differential crap was just that, crap. Wandered off the res on that one...
I bet you take Jehovah's witnesses at their word too. Ever try thinking for yourself? This is the science thread, so if you don't want to science then GTFO.
The problem presents an interesting paradox depending on how it is worded/interpreted.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,388
- 80,839
Let us know what the mph would be with a rolling resistance coefficient of 0.01 would be (which is good estimation of a typical light aircraft).