13
   

Counter-intuitive science questions.

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 11:29 am
@Bennet,
Bennet wrote:

Well your option a) can be achieved under certain parameters that lie outside the normal conditions. Because under normal conditions the effect of wheels, speed of the conveyor belt and rolling resistance together, these two effects would be less than the thrust of the engine.

Like I said, maybe you describe the situation poorly. If thrust overcomes drag from the wheels, then the conveyor will no long be running exactly counter to the wheels. You're breaking the conditions of your own experiment.

Bennet wrote:
a modern day paradox

Nah. Just a poorly-constructed visualization.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 11:32 am
@Bennet,
From the straight dope article you referenced:

Quote:
"A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?"


That's different from what you described.

All this describes is a plane with a tailwind.

From the same article:

Quote:
But what if the treadmill continues to accelerate? Different story. In principle it's possible to accelerate the treadmill at a rate that will exactly counteract any forward force you care to apply. (This is a departure from the original question, which said the conveyor belt compensated for the plane's speed,, not its force.) The only mathematics needed to demonstrate this is the well-known physics axiom F = ma--that is, force equals mass times acceleration. Given that the conveyor exerts some backward force F on the plane, we simply crank up the acceleration as much as necessary to equal any forward force F generated by its engines. Result: The plane stands still and doesn't take off.


This is what you described.
Bennet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 11:43 am
@DrewDad,
Even under the second condition where the plane is assumed stationary with respect to the ground, if this highly powerful conveyor belt starts to drag air back creating enough air movement to create a head wind needed for lift, and the effects of wheels are minimal, liftoff is possible.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 11:53 am
@Bennet,
Bennet wrote:
the effects of wheels are minimal, liftoff is possible.

If the headwind is enough, then the effects of the wheels are irrelevant.

Please, just stop.
Bennet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 12:02 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
If the headwind is enough, then the effects of the wheels are irrelevant.

Please, just stop.

Laughing Not necessarily in this case. Having applied the wheel breaks, or having replaced a lubricated wheel bearings with non lubricated/ rusty wheel bearings won't simulate the conveyor belt to spin as fast. You have forgotten the fact that in the given parameters that the conveyor belt's speed is in synch in with the plane's wheels. In the case with the wheel break, the conveyor belt won't even move, necessarily. In either case, this will lead the conveyor belt to not reach as higher speeds (running respective to these new wheel conditions) as the previous mentioned condition where effects by the wheel is minimal, thus we can conclude slower air movement, thus likely not enough headwind for lift off.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 12:11 pm
@Bennet,
"Air breaks?" What, pray tell, are those?

Air brakes? Those are normal brakes, operated by air pressure. They have nothing to do with flight.

You're just adding silly stuff now, and you're sounding more ridiculous by the moment.
Bennet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 12:12 pm
@DrewDad,
Freudian slip. Wheel breaks of course. Fixed it.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 12:14 pm
@Bennet,
Why would anyone apply wheel brakes? You're just waving your hands at this point, because you just sound silly.
Bennet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 12:16 pm
@DrewDad,
I am just taking into account as many possible conditions, silly as it may seem.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 12:27 pm
@Bennet,
Bennet wrote:

Wheel breaks


Could you try to spell 'brakes' correctly?
Bennet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 12:29 pm
@contrex,
Will try. Sorry about that.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 01:22 pm
@Bennet,
Right.....

In other words, hand waving.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 01:31 pm
@Bennet,
Quote:
The gadget that determines the speed of the belt can sense the rotation of the wheels and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same speed as the wheel.
Ben that doesn't make sense, think about it. It's like saying, "The age of that child is exactly his own age."

Instead, the gadget would have to sense the position of the vehicle, increasing the speed of the belt so as to keep the plane still through wheel/bearing/air friction etc. Probably no conveyor could go fast enough; so without reading the remainder of your post I immediately conclude that of course it will take off. So now let me read it

Quote:
Whether jet engines or propeller driven, the plane achieve flight by pulling themselves through the air, where air rushing over the wings gives it lift and enables flight.
In the case of the jet however, where there's no lift without forward motion, when set barely above idling just the friction of the wheel bearing might indeed keep the vehicle still

In the case of the prop plane, the slight lift derived from the engines might reduce the effect of friction between wheel and belt so that it slides off. So whether or not the vehicle takes off depends upon a number of factors, the principal one depending on how high the pilot is allowed to set the throttle when he knows he is still on the conveyor

Quote:
On a normal runway, the rotation of the tires results in forward movement, but has no bearing on the behavior of a plane during takeoff.
To the contrary unless I misunderstand you, inflation of the tires, temperature, any incidental contact of a brake pad, bearing friction, etc etc, could have a profound effect

For instance what if the brakes are locked

Quote:
With a conveyer belt, regardless of how fast the conveyor belt is counter rotate, the propeller or the jet turbines shove the air backwards and create thrust and this won't let the plane to remain stationary.
To the contrary, see above

Quote:
Essentially, the propeller or the jet turbines would continue to provide power to move the aircraft forward, just like it does in the air and how fast the wheels are spinning is irrelevant.
This might be true with a very special set of wheels and a humungous conveyor capable of incredible speed. But the question is whether this is a real situation with real planes and real friction or a theoretical mathematical conjectural transcendental situation as with the ball that is said not to stop at the peak of its trajectory

Quote:
The wheels may be spinning at a much higher RPM in this case, but that doesn't affect the plane at all.
Well now, that's under the assumption that the restraining effects of the tire friction/bearing/air resistance, etc, don't depend on RPM. But in fact they do. The faster the belt runs the greater the restraint

Quote:
The propellers are pushing against air as opposed to a car where the wheels push against the ground to go,
Irrelevant

Quote:
and soon the engines will exert thrust and the aircraft will acquire airspeed,
Forgive me Ben, and no offense by any means, but (forgive any rxepetition) whether the plane escapes the conveyor depends on the whim of the pilot, programming of the gadget that determines the speed of the rollers, the type of airplane,,what kind of engine is involved condition of the tires, their composition, the composition of the belt, where it's situated, etc etc etc etc

Quote:
….and will liftoff regardless of the presence of the described high powered conveyor belt.
Gosh now Ben, as you had got me to thinking, I wonder whether I might have achieved a like effect
Bennet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 02:06 pm
@DrewDad,
Not at all. I'm more than happy to admit my mistake.
The explanation makes more sense with the condition of:
"The gadget determines the ground speed of the plane and rotates in the conveyor belt in the opposite direction at that same speed."
I can see now why I said that. In my mind, I equated wheel speed with ground speed. Which makes want to ask you, isn't ground speed and wheel speed the same, ignoring wheel slip?.
Bennet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 02:07 pm
@dalehileman,
I gave the wrong condition for the explanation. See the post above.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 02:19 pm
@Bennet,
Quote:
The explanation makes more sense with the condition of:"The gadget determines the ground speed of the plane and rotates in the conveyor belt in the opposite direction at that same speed."
Forgive me again Ben but the ground speed of the plane based on what, at the moment it's just sitting there

Doubtless you mean the otherwise ground speed of the plane as determined by the setting of the throttle in which course of course obviously the vehicle would come off the belt

Otherwise we're back to the boy's age being exactly how old he is
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 02:31 pm
@Bennet,
Bennet wrote:
Which makes want to ask you, isn't ground speed and wheel speed the same, ignoring wheel slip?.[/color]

Depends on what you define as the ground. Is the conveyor belt the ground, or is it the foundation on which the conveyor belt affixed?
Bennet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 02:42 pm
@DrewDad,
Foundation on which the conveyor belt is affixed.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 03:35 pm
@Bennet,
Then, no, ground speed and wheel speed are not the same.

If the airplane is moving at speed x/sec, and the conveyor belt is moving in the opposite direction at speed x/sec, then the wheels would cover 2x/sec.
0 Replies
 
Z
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 04:40 pm
@maxdancona,
In all reference frames, why is the speed of light constant and not any other speed?
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 09:47:09