Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
lmao paul i've been doing the same.
I read this, went to an exam, came back and have been devoting most of my time to it since, and i'm supposed to be studying for an exam tomorrow.
Exactly same mate 
was up at 6:30 am this morning, replied, went to exam, came back, and been stuck on this thread - sad, but I just can't seem to leave it 
Fuckety fuck fuck - all nighter I think 
Bloody computer science - Algorithms tommorrow  shudder.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
due to the belt counteracting it's progress.
The belt DOES NOT counteract its progress.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
I had functional programming today.
Algorithms was before xmas.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
SVM seriously, my advice would be if you have a toy car go away and play about simulating a conveyor belt with pulling a piece of paper or summit, move the car around, think about it and come back
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
I had functional programming today.
Algorithms was before xmas.
ah you first year?
I did functional programming last year? that all caml light etc that was poor.
2nd year Algorithms tommorrow sigh.
|
Ste
Premium Member
Registered: 5th Mar 03
Location: Taif, Saudi Arabia
User status: Offline
|
IT WILL TAKE OFF
I would rather lose by a mile because i built my own car, than win by an inch because someone else built it for me.
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_J
SVN mate you need to learn what speed is and what a force is.
there's a big difference. Speed is a measure of how fast something moves, a Force is a FORCE acting.
If you walk towards me at 5 mph, with a force of say 100 Nm and I walk at you at 5mph with only a force of 70 Nm, will you be able to walk forward?
or will we meet in the middle and stop?
I think you'll be able to push me backwards and continue walking forward. Regardless of our speeds being the same.
Sarcasm isn't required Paul. This thread has become quite unpleasant enough without that.
I did plenty on forces in school and college.
The premise in this example is that the plane's speed will be matched by the belt.
If you have decided that is not the case, I have wasted my time and you've had a good laugh at my expense.
|
Hammer
Member
Registered: 11th Feb 04
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
quote:
Originally posted by Sxi04
If you are saying it stays stationary while the conveyor moves then the plane isnt moving at the same speed as the conveyor is.
No Mr 04, geographically stationary, i.e. stationary in realtion to it's surroundings, due to the belt counteracting it's progress.
it is physically impossible for the plane to travel at speed and stay in the same place?
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
2nd atm, haskell, software design and implementation next week and thats me done.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
The premise in this example is that the plane's speed will be matched by the belt.
And therefore the wheels spin very fast, but the plane is able to move due to it pushing against air, not the ground.
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by robmarriott
the fact that we were all arguing that it would happen if the plane could move, and thinking that you were disagreeing, then you agreed, and i was surprised
I didn't agree Robin.
I said if he's decided that the plane can move, that makes things kind of redundant doesn't it?
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_J
SVN mate you need to learn what speed is and what a force is.
there's a big difference. Speed is a measure of how fast something moves, a Force is a FORCE acting.
If you walk towards me at 5 mph, with a force of say 100 Nm and I walk at you at 5mph with only a force of 70 Nm, will you be able to walk forward?
or will we meet in the middle and stop?
I think you'll be able to push me backwards and continue walking forward. Regardless of our speeds being the same.
Sarcasm isn't required Paul. This thread has become quite unpleasant enough without that.
I did plenty on forces in school and college.
The premise in this example is that the plane's speed will be matched by the belt.
If you have decided that is not the case, I have wasted my time and you've had a good laugh at my expense.
I was not being sarcastic  was just trying to use an example
I'm saying the speeds can be matched, but the forces can still overcome it.
So plane accelerates one way, and conveyour belt accelerates the other way.
so one sec the plane is at 100 mph and the conveyour belt is whizzing at 100 mph opposite, then the plane is 110 mph and the conveyour belt is whizzing at 110 mph opposite.
The plane is MOVING, not stationary... so it's covering distance down a infinately long conveyour belt down 'the runway'...
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
SVM seriously, my advice would be if you have a toy car go away and play about simulating a conveyor belt with pulling a piece of paper or summit, move the car around, think about it and come back
|
Ste
Premium Member
Registered: 5th Mar 03
Location: Taif, Saudi Arabia
User status: Offline
|
SVM 286: please accept you are wrong. you are boring us now
I would rather lose by a mile because i built my own car, than win by an inch because someone else built it for me.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
quote:
Originally posted by robmarriott
the fact that we were all arguing that it would happen if the plane could move, and thinking that you were disagreeing, then you agreed, and i was surprised
I didn't agree Robin.
I said if he's decided that the plane can move, that makes things kind of redundant doesn't it?
I can guartentee in our examples the speed is still matched just like in brad's question. Both the plane speed and the conveyour belt speed will be the same in opposite directions - but the plane will still move (as in actually move, not looking stationary etc)
|
Ste
Premium Member
Registered: 5th Mar 03
Location: Taif, Saudi Arabia
User status: Offline
|
its exactly the same thing as when people dont realise that no matter how fast you drive, the bottom of your tyre is always at 0 mph
I would rather lose by a mile because i built my own car, than win by an inch because someone else built it for me.
|
Hammer
Member
Registered: 11th Feb 04
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ste W
SVM 286: please accept you are wrong. you are boring us now
he's not boring me can you not debate something without it constantly descending into personal insults. Folk are jumping on the bandwagon to shoot his theory down now which is not on really, he has his points other have theirs.
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
The whole point is that the plane wouldn't be able to move.
What is stopping it out of interest?
Loads of jet thrust in its favour - and what drag?
[Edited on 24-05-2006 by Ian]
Thrust/power/drag wern't a factor in Brad's original question Ian.
All he said was that belt and craft speed were the same.
Considering this is a fictional event with a fictional aircarft, I based my response on the facts i'd been provided with.
I'm rather shocked and very dissapointed that things have escalated to this level.
I wouldn't have responded in the first place if i'd known it would generate such friction on the forum.
For that I apologise for the part I have played.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
I think its only because people are frustrated at how difficult it is to debate such a technical point. I myself have shouted at my computer a number of times tonight.
For me, thrust and drag are a large part of the scenario as these are the two factors which would affect plane speed and thus the planes ability to take off.
The belt matches the plane, but we must still consider the forces acting upon it.
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sxi04
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
quote:
Originally posted by Sxi04
If you are saying it stays stationary while the conveyor moves then the plane isnt moving at the same speed as the conveyor is.
No Mr 04, geographically stationary, i.e. stationary in realtion to it's surroundings, due to the belt counteracting it's progress.
it is physically impossible for the plane to travel at speed and stay in the same place?
No it isn't.
The plane would be moving on the belt wouldn't it, but it would be at a geo stationary position, much in the same way as a jogger on a tread mill would be.
|
Ste
Premium Member
Registered: 5th Mar 03
Location: Taif, Saudi Arabia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sxi04
quote:
Originally posted by Ste W
SVM 286: please accept you are wrong. you are boring us now
he's not boring me can you not debate something without it constantly descending into personal insults. Folk are jumping on the bandwagon to shoot his theory down now which is not on really, he has his points other have theirs.
you are boring us who know it WILL take off by not accepting you are wrong. i am an aircraft technician and have told you how and why it will take off yet you still try to disprove me
I would rather lose by a mile because i built my own car, than win by an inch because someone else built it for me.
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ste W
SVM 286: please accept you are wrong. you are boring us now
Nice, we should have a beer some time, you're a right charmer aren't you. why not read something else if you're bored. And how many of you are there. Multiple personality is it?
|
Ste
Premium Member
Registered: 5th Mar 03
Location: Taif, Saudi Arabia
User status: Offline
|
if it was a car then yes it would be the same as a jogger on a tread mill but if it was someone in a wheel chair on a tread mill with a rocket on his back he would move forwards!!
I would rather lose by a mile because i built my own car, than win by an inch because someone else built it for me.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
No - this situation isn't compatible with the original question.
For this geostationary thing to be happening the plane must be at zero mph? Therefore according to the question the belt must also?
Alternatively, the plane does 150 knots, the belt does 150 knots, the wheels therefore do 300 knots but the plane is still creating enough lift at 150 knots to take off.
In the context of the original question - yes it would take off.
In the context of the equilibrium of geostationary position - no it would not, however this was never the question. Its possible to balance the forces and sit there, but thats not the limit of the force available from the engine, which is a large amount more powerful than the loss of the belt.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
Not being funny but with no thrust, it's fairly obvious A the plane won't take off and B the plane would not move anywhere.
Thus the plane would sit at 0 mph and the conveyour would also sit at 0 mph.
SVM including the inclusion of thrust - can you now see where we're coming from?
I still don't think you get our idea, as the speeds are still matched - we're not twisting what brad is saying at all.
I honestly was not trying to be nasty, or call you an idiot - I was just suprised you wouldn't look at it from our point of view.
I think you just got a few people's backs up replying at the start constantly going
'I don't know what everyones arguing about, it's so simple  ' < all the time.
considering you obviously don't get it all.
|
