![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"alexy" wrote in message
news ![]() Just to "set the hook" here, are you saying that it will be possible to have the conveyer move backwards fast enough that the plane remains still, even under full power, and with no brakes on? I thought you had already established that it would be possible, and that the treadmill speed is "somewhat below the speed of light"? You didn't appear to solve the "materials integrity" aspect of the problem, but that seems like a minor quibble. ![]() Pete |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Peter Duniho" wrote:
"alexy" wrote in message news ![]() Just to "set the hook" here, are you saying that it will be possible to have the conveyer move backwards fast enough that the plane remains still, even under full power, and with no brakes on? I thought you had already established that it would be possible, and that the treadmill speed is "somewhat below the speed of light"? You didn't appear to solve the "materials integrity" aspect of the problem, but that seems like a minor quibble. ![]() No fair; that's the next question, not to be asked out of order!! ;-) -- Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Peter Duniho" wrote:
"alexy" wrote in message news ![]() Just to "set the hook" here, are you saying that it will be possible to have the conveyer move backwards fast enough that the plane remains still, even under full power, and with no brakes on? I thought you had already established that it would be possible, and that the treadmill speed is "somewhat below the speed of light"? You didn't appear to solve the "materials integrity" aspect of the problem, but that seems like a minor quibble. ![]() You know, there is a fallacy in my reasoning that I am surprised no one has called me on. We are used to aerodynamic drag, which increases as the square of velocity. But if my memory of high school physics is correct (and if Newton hasn't changed his mind in the last 40 yearsg) the friction between two bodies is a coefficient of friction times the force normal to the motion (i.e., the weight of the plane). No component for the relative velocities of the two bodies! So the drag due to wheels is small, and speeding up the conveyer will not increase that small drag, at least until you get to the "noise" elements that make the idealized drag model imperfect. I guess that by _accelerating_ the conveyer, you could make the plane use all of its power for a short while providing the angular acceleration to the wheels, but you very quickly get to relativistic speeds, without ever reaching a steady state tradeoff for the engine/prop's thrust. Much easier to just read the problem as stated, and have the conveyer only move as fast backwards as the plane moves forward!! -- Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"alexy" wrote in message
... You know, there is a fallacy in my reasoning that I am surprised no one has called me on. We are used to aerodynamic drag, which increases as the square of velocity. But if my memory of high school physics is correct (and if Newton hasn't changed his mind in the last 40 yearsg) the friction between two bodies is a coefficient of friction times the force normal to the motion (i.e., the weight of the plane). No component for the relative velocities of the two bodies! Hardly seemed worth it, given the opportunity to equivocate on the point. In particular, while the idealized friction drag remains static relative to speed, that ignores the possibility for change in the materials as the friction heats them. Expansion may create a higher normal force (depending on what part expands faster), and thus higher frictional drag. It also ignores aerodynamic drag around the surface of the tire. While I haven't bothered to calculate what these increases would be, it seems safe to say that it's *possible* they would rise fast enough to offset the available thrust before reaching the speed of light. Basically, in an arm-chair, lay-person discussion like this, practically *anything* is possible as you approach the speed of light. So why not just invoke that, and ignore the details? ![]() Pete |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Strap a big enough engine on the treadmill, and one way or another,
you'll make it take off. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
("Peter Duniho" wrote)
While I haven't bothered to calculate what these increases would be, it seems safe to say that it's *possible* they would rise fast enough to offset the available thrust before reaching the speed of light. Basically, in an arm-chair, lay-person discussion like this, practically *anything* is possible as you approach the speed of light. So why not just invoke that, and ignore the details? ![]() Let's take this away from the light... For the plane NOT to take off - the plane must have zero forward movement/airspeed. According to the OP rules, in that state the belt is stationary. If the prop is pulling at the plane to go forward, the belt can keep up (debate-debate-debate) causing the plane not to make any headway. Again, in-that-state, the belt must (now) stop because it only travels backward at the same speed as the plane moves forward - but the plane is still pulling forward ...against a (now) stationary belt. I'm (now) officially confused. Montblack http://www.artfinale.com/store/sku_pgs/E06BT.php Taking steps to get the right answer. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Help, we're all on a treadmill and we can't get off.
What can we take for brain misfunction? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Montblack" wrote in message
... Let's take this away from the light... For the plane NOT to take off - the plane must have zero forward movement/airspeed. According to the OP rules, in that state the belt is stationary. [...] See, this is where you went wrong. This little tangent is not about the original post's rules. The original problem has been modified for the purpose of entertainment, not enlightenment. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Passenger crash-lands plane after pilot suffers heart attack | R.L. | Piloting | 7 | May 7th 05 11:17 PM |
Navy sues man for plane he recovered in swamp | marc | Owning | 6 | March 29th 04 12:06 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | October 1st 03 07:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | September 1st 03 07:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | August 1st 03 07:27 AM |