Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  • 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!
653
1
If it's moving backwards at the speed of the treadmill the wheel speed is 0 so you are wrong even there.
I said if it is moving backwards, not necessarily at the speed of the treadmill. The wheel speed is key because that is what is contributing the rolling resistance force.

But let's take your new example. Moving backwards at the treadmill speed, turn on the engine, wheel speed starts at 0, but increases, eventually the wheel speed gets to 470mph and c, and thus the rolling resistance, rise to the level that the thrust cannot overcome it. If at that point the plane's wing velocity isn't above take off speed, it won't take off. The plane's velocity will be an integral function of initial velocity and changes to c and thus the rolling resistance force over time.
 

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
But let's take your new example. Moving backwards at the treadmill speed, turn on the engine, wheel speed starts at 0, but increases, eventually the wheel speed gets to 470mph and c, and thus the rolling resistance, rise to the level that the thrust cannot overcome it. If at that point the plane's wing velocity isn't above take off speed, it won't take off. The plane's velocity will be an integral function of initial velocity and changes to c and thus the rolling resistance force over time.
You said it wouldn't reduce the velocity at which it was moving backwards. How can the wheel speed increase if that doesn't happen?
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,388
80,834
Ancient it's fucked if the treadmill is rolling back at around 470 (It'd likely be less than that because the rolling resistance would increase as the plane moved forward, so it'd be in at equilibrium somewhere between 0 and takeoff speed). Where that number is exactly because of the decrease in weight due to lift I dunno, but it never generates lift at 470mph if it can't achieve positive velocity relative to the ground.

What we really need is a plane that can take off backward.
 

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
That wasn't what I asked about it rolling backwards, I asked if turning the engines on would reduce the velocity at which it rolled backwards, which it would.

We're of course making assumptions here to ignore whether or not the plane would be able to operate with air rushing past it at high speeds in the wrong direction. I don't know what type of force that would exert on the wing or propellers.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,388
80,834
I think in our scenario it's best to assume that either:
1. The plane is artificially held in place until the treadmill and the propeller are running at fullspeed.
2. While the plane is moving forward relative to ground the treadmill will continue to accelerate up to 470mph.

In either of these cases you won't need to worry about the plane going backward at high speeds.
 

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
Yes, and planes take off well before 470 mph. We understand this, I was attempting to provide some understanding by approaching the "problem" from another direction, but it still failed.
 

Tea_sl

shitlord
1,019
0
Every wheel, no matter how it is propelled forward, has rolling resistance in the opposite direction.
This is not under dispute.

Rolling resistance is the product of non-elastic effects of wheel deformation.
Rolling resistance is the result of a great many things. Surface and Tire texture, surface and tire materials, wheel radius, wheel spin and torque, tire pressure, velocity, curvature of the surface, tire construction, wheel load, etc...

The equation you are using is a simplified version for some car X, and it's extremely unlikely those values apply to airplanes. Road tires at 200 mph are going to encounter significant deformation and oscillation problems whereas aircraft tires will not, and that is among the several dozen reasons why your number is far too low. The speed required to prevent take off is likely to be at a point of catastrophic failure.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,388
80,834
The equation you are using is a simplified version for some car X, and it's extremely unlikely those values apply to airplanes. Road tires at 200 mph are going to encounter significant deformation and oscillation problems whereas aircraft tires will not, and that is among the several dozen reasons why your number is far too low. The speed required to prevent take off is likely to be at a point of catastrophic failure.
Then find evidence of a better equation or a better rolling resistance coefficient.

Also from a quick google it looks like we're not far off:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XMp...icient&f=false
 

Lenas

Trump's Staff
7,559
2,299
You guys are letting a fucking idiot ruin what used to be an awesome thread. Stop engaging him.
 

Void

BAU BAU
<Gold Donor>
9,813
11,731
Guys, guys, guys! I have a degree in aeronautical engineering, I can fix this!

Ok seriously, I do have that degree, but nothing can make people understand this problem until the part about the wheels not mattering finally clicks in their head. I've tried to explain this to several people over the years, so let me see if this will help at all.

Take a toy airplane with a propeller and an engine. Set it on a treadmill (engine off at first). Start that treadmill up, but hold the plane in position with your hand. No matter how fast you make that treadmill go, you can hold the plane in place without moving, right (assuming you don't rip off the wheels due to friction)? To the extent that you can probably even hold it there with a pinky finger, because all the wheels are doing is spinning in place, not exerting any real force except the negligible amount due to friction (the fact that you can offset it with one finger is showing you how negligible it is). Speed up or slow down the treadmill and it makes no difference, the wheels just spin and spin.

Ok, now pick that airplane up and hold it in your hand, and start the engine. What happens? The propeller starts to exert a force on your arm, wanting to pull the airplane forward through the air. Do the wheels do anything at all while you are holding it in your hand? No, they don't, they just sit there. That's because the engine is in no way connected to the wheels, just the propeller.

Now, put that airplane back down on the spinning treadmill, holding it in place again. The wheels start to spin again, but only because of the reason it spun in the first place when the engine was turned off. The engine on or off is doing nothing to the wheels, at all. However, that slight pull on your arm that you felt while holding it in the air is still there, because the propeller is trying to pull the airplane forward through the air. If you let go, the plane will start to slowly move forward on the treadmill because of that pull on the air. No matter how fast the treadmill is going, that propeller is pulling the plane through the AIR. Assuming you haven't hit the maximum structural velocity of the wheels, the speed you set the treadmill at doesn't matter. The wheels are just spinning, and they spin like they just don't care. The plane will slowly start to accelerate THROUGH THE AIR, until it reaches a speed at which the airfoil shape of the wing generates enough lift to start flying. Assuming they don't blow up, the wheels can be going 10 mph or 1000 mph when it finally takes off. All that matters is how fast the air goes over the wing.

Did that help at all?
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,388
80,834
Hey Vvoid stop dicking around with using too many words to describe the treadmill problem and show the math on how fast the treadmill would have to go to cock over a cessna.
 

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
Hey Vvoid stop dicking around with using too many words to describe the treadmill problem and show the math on how fast the treadmill would have to go to cock over a cessna.
Like Tea has been saying, I'd imagine the wheels fail due to spinning too fast before their rolling resistance has any appreciable effect on the plane's ability to move forward.

But that's just what you're getting at, anyways.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,388
80,834
What sort of surface on the treadmill?
Concrete. It's really noisy.
Like Tea has been saying, I'd imagine the wheels fail due to spinning too fast before their rolling resistance has any appreciable effect on the plane's ability to move forward.

But that's just what you're getting at, anyways.
That was my assumption too, but after OB demonstrated that the equilibrium would occur at around 470mph I'm not convinced that's true. 470mph is of course an incredible speed for a wheel to move at and I'm sure a real plan would just wobble/burn and crash but whatever.
 

Tea_sl

shitlord
1,019
0
Then find evidence of a better equation or a better rolling resistance coefficient.

Also from a quick google it looks like we're not far off:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XMp...icient&f=false
That link suggests that the equation we've been using is off by a factor of 15ish, which is only going to become more out of whack as velocity increases. I don't know what kind of tolerances you work with, but I would definitely hazard to say that's "far off".

I can't find a good equation, because I don't think anyone has done the necessary testing to make one. That doesn't mean, however, that what we have is a good or comparable starting point.