at an infinitely small increment after the plane has changed forward velocity to V=0+, then wheelspeed is (V=0+) and thus treadmill speed is -(V=0+).
So i think the function is just V(treadmill)=2*V(plane)
but some part of me wants to tend this thing to infinity…
[quote=“newman,post:281,topic:37377"”]
at an infinitely small increment after the plane has changed forward velocity to V=0+, then wheelspeed is (V=0+) and thus treadmill speed is -(V=0+).
So i think the function is just V(treadmill)=2*V(plane)
but some part of me wants to tend this thing to infinity…
[/quote]
You’re dead on, to infinity and beyond is correct!!!
but, the wheels are going to always be trying to spin faster then the treadmill, and the treadmill is always going to be trying to catch up to the wheels.
[quote=“boardjnky4,post:283,topic:37377"”]
but, the wheels are going to always be trying to spin faster then the treadmill, and the treadmill is always going to be trying to catch up to the wheels.
[/quote]
But the question doesn’t allow this…
Wheel speed has to = treadmill speed :rx3:
[quote=“97FormulaWS-6,post:284,topic:37377"”]
But the question doesn’t allow this…
Wheel speed has to = treadmill speed :rx3:
[/quote]
i know i know thats what bugs me so much
if the question said that plane speed = conveyor speed, it would be a done deal
the only reason the plane would continue to go in a forward even if landing on a treadmill that is going the opposite way… is because of its momentum it had from flying through the air.
if you dropped a plane directly onto a moving treadmill from above, which direction would it go? obviously in the direction of the treadmill.
i’m not arguing the subject either way there, just touching on your point.
now onto the subject, let’s go backwards for shits and giggles. let’s turn the treadmill on first. say a plane is sitting on the giant treadmill, engines are off. the treadmill starts up, the plane starts moving backward, at 50 mph. the plane’s engines are started, but just set to exert the right amount of thrust to DIRECTLY combat the 50 mph of treadmill speed… what happens? the plane doesnt go anywhere, and the wheels spin in place. right?
50 mph treadmill backwards plus only 25 mph of thrust will still make the plane go backwards…
it’s the same if you’re holding the toy plane with a string… the faster the treadmill is going, the more force you have to hold onto the string with, else the plane goes backwards. if you pull forward on the string more, it will go forward, if you lessen the force, it will pull backwards.
so, IN THEORY, IFthe treadmill could ALWAYS exactly match the same force as exerted by the plane’s engines, wouldn’t the plane be stationary and not be able to lift off?
am i completely wrong? flame away if so. either way at least this is making the work day go by… lol
[quote=“LAFENGAS,post:275,topic:37377"”]
for those who don’t think it’ll take off…what do you think would happen if a plane tried to LAND on a giant conveyor going in the opposite direction and never applied the brakes. Instantly go backwards?
[/quote]
I don’t really get this question… the plane is just gonna fall off the end ?
[quote=“badazzss,post:286,topic:37377"”]
the only reason the plane would continue to go in a forward even if landing on a treadmill that is going the opposite way… is because of its momentum it had from flying through the air.
if you dropped a plane directly onto a moving treadmill from above, which direction would it go? obviously in the direction of the treadmill.
i’m not arguing the subject either way there, just touching on your point.
now onto the subject, let’s go backwards for shits and giggles. let’s turn the treadmill on first. say a plane is sitting on the giant treadmill, engines are off. the treadmill starts up, the plane starts moving backward, at 50 mph. the plane’s engines are started, but just set to exert the right amount of thrust to DIRECTLY combat the 50 mph of treadmill speed… what happens? the plane doesnt go anywhere, and the wheels spin in place. right?
50 mph treadmill backwards plus only 25 mph of thrust will still make the plane go backwards…
it’s the same if you’re holding the toy plane with a string… the faster the treadmill is going, the more force you have to hold onto the string with, else the plane goes backwards. if you pull forward on the string more, it will go forward, if you lessen the force, it will pull backwards.
so, IN THEORY, IFthe treadmill could ALWAYS exactly match the same force as exerted by the plane’s engines, wouldn’t the plane be stationary and not be able to lift off?
am i completely wrong? flame away if so. either way at least this is making the work day go by… lol
[/quote]
You are pretty much completely wrong.
lol ty.
i just read something else too… kinda explained it. i obviously was never good at physics or engineering… doh
uniform constant acceleration on the wheels and treadmill.
[quote=“badazzss,post:286,topic:37377"”]
the only reason the plane would continue to go in a forward even if landing on a treadmill that is going the opposite way… is because of its momentum it had from flying through the air.
if you dropped a plane directly onto a moving treadmill from above, which direction would it go? obviously in the direction of the treadmill.
i’m not arguing the subject either way there, just touching on your point.
now onto the subject, let’s go backwards for shits and giggles. let’s turn the treadmill on first. say a plane is sitting on the giant treadmill, engines are off. the treadmill starts up, the plane starts moving backward, at 50 mph. the plane’s engines are started, but just set to exert the right amount of thrust to DIRECTLY combat the 50 mph of treadmill speed… what happens? the plane doesnt go anywhere, and the wheels spin in place. right?
50 mph treadmill backwards plus only 25 mph of thrust will still make the plane go backwards…
it’s the same if you’re holding the toy plane with a string… the faster the treadmill is going, the more force you have to hold onto the string with, else the plane goes backwards. if you pull forward on the string more, it will go forward, if you lessen the force, it will pull backwards.
so, IN THEORY, IFthe treadmill could ALWAYS exactly match the same force as exerted by the plane’s engines, wouldn’t the plane be stationary and not be able to lift off?
am i completely wrong? flame away if so. either way at least this is making the work day go by… lol
[/quote]
no you are right, you CANNOT neglect the friction when thinking about this, cause the friction is what brings this whole question to the table and I think that is what people are forgetting.
When on the rollerblades on the people mover, as the speed of the people mover increases, it gets increasingly harder to hold onto it.
As this whole system moves towards inifnity, the engine will run out of juice and the plane will end up unable to move forward against the force of friction.
man, i could be really wrong, and i have no mathematical proof to back this up, but that is the theory as to why i think the plane will not move. I started off thinking the plane would definitely take off, but now i am thinking with the friction between the wheels and conveyor belt, it might not.
I dont know, ide like to think these jet engines have enough power to over come this, but if the treadmill is able to match the speed at any given time, then that would mean that the power of the treadmill is greater then the power of the jet engine. And if the speed of the conveyor belt is faster then the speed of the wheels, then the plane is going to move in reverse.
wheel speed > conveyor speed, plane moves forward and eventually takes off
wheel speed = conveyor speed, plane stands still
wheel speed < conveyor speed, plane moves in reverse
If i am wrong, please tell me why.
[quote=“sureshot007,post:290,topic:37377"”]
uniform constant acceleration on the wheels and treadmill.
[/quote]
this is true and the only case in which i cannot picture what will happen in my head…
man i suck at physics
the way i am picturing it is that if they both accelerate uniformly, that the instaneous speed is always equal, so it doesnt move. but i have no argument to prove this or not prove this. Any way you can show me?
Please read post number 263!!! LOL
or we can just go in circles which is better!!! LOL
[quote=“ILCisDEAD,post:287,topic:37377"”]
I don’t really get this question… the plane is just gonna fall off the end ?
[/quote]
:word:
[quote=“boardjnky4,post:292,topic:37377"”]
man i suck at lots of things
[/quote]
Tom I’ll explain it to you when I see you next… Wednesday for the sabres game?
[quote=“ILCisDEAD,post:295,topic:37377"”]
Tom I’ll explain it to you when I see you next… Wednesday for the sabres game?
[/quote]
sounds good. I’m still on the fence until I see anything proven on paper.
this is going to bug me all day
[quote=“97FormulaWS-6,post:293,topic:37377"”]
Please read post number 263!!! LOL
or we can just go in circles which is better!!! LOL
[/quote]
your right, but the suspense is going to kill me!!!
MPD would argue with you because he thinks going sideways is faster anyways.
[quote=“ILCisDEAD,post:287,topic:37377"”]
I don’t really get this question… the plane is just gonna fall off the end ?
[/quote]
conveyor belt drifting?
For the people that think it is not going to ake off… Answer me this… could a plane take off on ice? If so, why?