SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jules S
darren,
It is possible that the wheels and conveyor belt are doing 400mph and the plane itself is doing 600mph
It isn't Jules. We already know that the belt travels at the same speed as the craft. 
That is the overriding factor here. 
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by gianluigi
I think that Live Lee guy has the right idea
please tell me you a fucking joking  Live lee has just been talking twaddle all the way through this post
At least people like dave17,SVN,Darren etc are correct in the way they're thinking - just shame they're not thinking in the way the question is set 
Live_Lee just talks crap.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
There is no point in taking this any further without a concrete proof.
Live lee has a good argument and he knows why he's arguing like that.
There are now idiots joining in and thinking they are 100% correct no matter how stupid what they are saying is.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by LiVe LeE
the forward propulsion of the thrust jets [is what] causes the rotation of the wheels
No its not. Its the relative position of the ground to the moving plane which moves the wheels. If you move the ground, you cancel this effect, but the plane is still moving.
|
DarrenGSi
Member
Registered: 11th Jul 05
Location: East Ayrshire Drives: Civic Jordan 381
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
quote:
Originally posted by Jules S
darren,
It is possible that the wheels and conveyor belt are doing 400mph and the plane itself is doing 600mph
It isn't Jules. We already know that the belt travels at the same speed as the craft.
That is the overriding factor here.
agreed!
they are at the same speed constantly no acceleration from any of the 2. therefore as the plane is geographically on the same spot it will not get any wind lift which makes a plane take off in the first place
|
Hammer
Member
Registered: 11th Feb 04
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_J
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
I won't be swayed until someone shows me a 737 taking off from a static position at full throttle on a giant conveyor belt that is matching it's speed.
And speed is the key here. We are discussing speed, not force.
You will never see a plane sitting on a giant conveyor stationary and take off - As that's not whats being discussed here. IT's neither likely what we are discussing would ever happen either.
Please open your mind and review what people are saying, everyone else has gathered already the plane is not stationary.
Geographically it IS stationary Paul, because the belt compensates for any motive input from the craft.
All we know is that the belt travels at the same speed as the plane.
It's very simple.
has someone hacked into your account? last time i checked you seemed to come across as someone with rational thought 
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
There is no point in taking this any further without a concrete proof.
Its my feeling that we need a better question. The confusion has arisen because the question implies but does not confirm two things. What is propelling the belt and whether the plane is free to move.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
Geographically it IS stationary
Depends what you're measuring against. Relative to the ground, yes, but then as I've already said the ground is not important.
You could not stop a plan by spinning its wheels backwards. It wouldn't slow down.
Awesome way of looking at it
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by John
There is no point in taking this any further without a concrete proof.
Its my feeling that we need a better question. The confusion has arisen because the question implies but does not confirm two things. What is propelling the belt and whether the plane is free to move.
i think everyone assumes the belt has its own power and the plane is free to move.
anyone please correct me if im wrong
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sxi04
disengage your brain from treating the aircraft as a car for just one minute, and please do something for me, and maybe the penny will drop.
if you have your mobile phone handy place a pen underneath and sit both on top of a piece of scrap paper. now move the scrap paper and the phone at the same speed in opposite directions as stated in the question.
If you come back and still believe that by moving the ground under the wheels is the same as exerting an equal force on the planes jets then i dont hold much hope that you'll ever be swayed.
I won't be swayed until someone shows me a 737 taking off from a static position at full throttle on a giant conveyor belt that is matching it's speed.
And speed is the key here. We are discussing speed, not force.
well they do say ignorance is bliss my wordy friend
I have demonstrated no ignorance in my replies Mr. 04.
Incidentally, I haven't at any point treated the craft as a car.
Your mind reading skills are a bit ropey this evening sir.
P.S. Look at the size of your reply, and the size of mine.
I think you get the gold for wordyness sir.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
Thanks.
This damn belt is having no effect whatsoever on the planes ability to thrust itself forward.
Not difficult.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by John
There is no point in taking this any further without a concrete proof.
Its my feeling that we need a better question. The confusion has arisen because the question implies but does not confirm two things. What is propelling the belt and whether the plane is free to move.
Yes, from about page 2 I said it was brad's fault for crap question
I just find it amusing, that people like you ian, me and other's can understand we're right this way, but understand where the other's like darren SVN are coming from (how they could've mis-interepreted the question) - but I find it amusing they can't get their head round at all in the way we may be possibly thinking.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
Thanks.
This damn belt is having no effect whatsoever on the planes ability to thrust itself forward.
Not difficult.
it would seem its not difficult wouldnt it 
|
bradfincham
Member
Registered: 20th Sep 02
Location: East Of England Drives: Clio 172
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
Thanks.
This damn belt is having no effect whatsoever on the planes ability to thrust itself forward.
Not difficult.
IAN is god remember guys, and he is on the winning team 
P.S - Ian says that we will be at 4 million posts very soon!!
[Edited on 24-05-2006 by bradfincham]
|
Jules S
Premium Member
Registered: 24th Dec 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
thank you, ffs this really is like trying to educate PORK
You like that phrase dont you
perhaps I should copyright it
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Imo Ian the conveyor being powered is irrelevant.
If the plane is tethered in place by something then no it won't take off but that would be a stupid question.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
i love that phrase mate
|
RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by LiVe LeE
the forward propulsion of the thrust jets [is what] causes the rotation of the wheels
No its not. Its the relative position of the ground to the moving plane which moves the wheels. If you move the ground, you cancel this effect, but the plane is still moving.
which is what I've said - the relative position to the groundplane is achieved as a result of the thrust from the engines - moving the body of the plane!
Paul I havnt talked any "twaddle" - Ive backed up everything I've sadi - stop being a dick
I'm sat with the godfather of jet propulsion, Savitsky's book in front of me - nothing I've said has been "Twaddle"
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
i think everyone assumes the belt has its own power and the plane is free to move.
In this instance, I fail to see how an aircraft propelled by thrust on its wings would fail to move.
Does this mean sea planes can't take off if there's a current? WTF.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
what does Savitsky know about conveyor belts?
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by dave17
quote:
Originally posted by bradfincham
Question:
If an aeroplane is taking off but is on a conveyor belt that is moving at the same speed as the plane, would the plane take off?
Just realised it doesnt even say its moving in the opposite direction, could both be going forward, if this was the case, then it would definately take off.
Im done
Bloody good point Dave.
If it is in fact travelling in the same direction as the plane it would render this entire thread redundant.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
I told my mate this one when we went to pick up a chinese. He was swearing blind like SVN etc, about it being stationary. Then I started explaining it in Steve / Ian's sense and he suddenly went oh yeh!
I think it's a lot easier to understand if you explain it in person, the problem here is some people have a picture in their head of what it is like and thus when we say things, it doesn't fit in with what they are thinking of.
|
RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_J
quote:
Originally posted by gianluigi
I think that Live Lee guy has the right idea
please tell me you a fucking joking Live lee has just been talking twaddle all the way through this post
At least people like dave17,SVN,Darren etc are correct in the way they're thinking - just shame they're not thinking in the way the question is set
Live_Lee just talks crap.
thats really pissed me off - you are a cunt of sorts arnt you!
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Does this mean sea planes can't take off if there's a current? WTF.
this is what i said to my mother, she used to teach science and agrees with me, that the plane would take off, wether it be in rough seas, on a conveyor belt, or into a strong wind
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by LiVe LeE
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by LiVe LeE
the forward propulsion of the thrust jets [is what] causes the rotation of the wheels
No its not. Its the relative position of the ground to the moving plane which moves the wheels. If you move the ground, you cancel this effect, but the plane is still moving.
which is what I've said - the relative position to the groundplane is achieved as a result of the thrust from the engines - moving the body of the plane!
Paul I havnt talked any "twaddle" - Ive backed up everything I've sadi - stop being a dick
I'm sat with the godfather of jet propulsion, Savitsky's book in front of me - nothing I've said has been "Twaddle"
anyone can quote anything - but it's making it relevant and understanding it mate
wasn't it you that first of all seemed to think when on the ground it was powered by the wheels
|
