Rockets Posted December 28, 2006 Share Posted December 28, 2006 DAMNNNNNNNNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can figure out that the damn plane will take off, but I can't post on to this forum!! Let me try again... D-Man...As much as I admire your knowledge of audio and speaker design, you've go this all wrong concerning the plane. Do you know what an air bearing is? We use air bearing pallets to move literally TONS of flight hardware around on a micro cushion of air. Suppose for a moment that you replaced the planes wheels with air bearings. The plane would float on a micro cushion of air above the spinning conveyor belt ...right?? Nothing there to impede it from taking off, correct?? Okay, put the wheels back on. Would you agree that unlike an automobile, where the engine and drive drain are coupled via the wheels to the surface, an airplanes wheels are just free spinning? Would it not make sense therefore that if the conveyore belt spun at matched speed to the speed of the plane, that the wheels would then spin freely at twice their normal rate? While the wheels will not enjoy the same friction free attributes of the air bearings, in this case it's close enough for government work...Would you not agree??? Please say yes!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted December 28, 2006 Share Posted December 28, 2006 It's alive!! This thread is alive again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilbert Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 D-Man, it does not matter what is going on with the wheels or the conveyer - the wheels are free rolling. The conveyer may change the rate of rotation of the wheels, but that means nothing to the plane. The thrust will push the plane forward and air will flow over and under the wings... no matter what the conveyer and wheels do - it takes off and flies. Are the wheels turning yet? Nah! who needs wheels on a plane anyway, they serve no purpose. Silly engineers, what the hell were they thinking when they put those darn pesky little wheels on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 You are right Gilbert. If it was easier to land and maneuver using rails then all you would need is a rail system, say mag-lev or even just electric, wheels would be unnecessary. Can't this thread get locked? How many more times (nice lyric, eh?) must this poor dead horse get beaten? Well heck, I guess since the native americans ate the horse into extinction the first time around, why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sputnik Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 D-Man, it does not matter what is going on with the wheels or the conveyer - the wheels are free rolling. The conveyer may change the rate of rotation of the wheels, but that means nothing to the plane. The thrust will push the plane forward and air will flow over and under the wings... no matter what the conveyer and wheels do - it takes off and flies. Are the wheels turning yet? Nah! who needs wheels on a plane anyway, they serve no purpose. Silly engineers, what the hell were they thinking when they put those darn pesky little wheels on. You're embarrassing yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilbert Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 D-Man, it does not matter what is going on with the wheels or the conveyer - the wheels are free rolling. The conveyer may change the rate of rotation of the wheels, but that means nothing to the plane. The thrust will push the plane forward and air will flow over and under the wings... no matter what the conveyer and wheels do - it takes off and flies. Are the wheels turning yet? Nah! who needs wheels on a plane anyway, they serve no purpose. Silly engineers, what the hell were they thinking when they put those darn pesky little wheels on. You're embarrassing yourself. Well if that ain't the classic Pot calling the kettle black. And considering your call name "Sputnik", only complicates your case all the more. No Wheels Needed... It's all in the trust baby.. heh heh heh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sputnik Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Kettle, I don't know what your physics or engineering background is but I've gathered from your posts on other topics that you're not entirely dim so you should be able to figure this out on your own. Think about how forces can react on a wheel and if a moment (or torque) can be transmitted past a dead axel. I'm sure there's a light bulb in your future if you really think it through. Happy New Year Your friend,Pot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilbert Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Kettle, I don't know what your physics or engineering background is but I've gathered from your posts on other topics that you're not entirely dim so you should be able to figure this out on your own. Think about how forces can react on a wheel and if a moment (or torque) can be transmitted past a dead axel. I'm sure there's a light bulb in your future if you really think it through. Happy New Year Your friend, Pot Last time for me on this thread (again)[:$] <?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />, Mr. Sputnik..... (aka Pot) Had I the inclination, and patience (not to mention monetary contribution$) I would take the time and put this on paper. In fact, considering this direction, all I would have to do is regurgitate Einsteins papers on relative motion, because the equations have already been derived and the theory has already been proven. Yet even Einstein (and I am definitely not comparing myself to him, for obvious reasons), still had his naysayers, sputniks and pots. Who, thankfully for you, me and the rest of the world were ignored and brushed aside. The answer to coyotees simple riddle is not about the method of propulsion (turbine thrust, or mechanically driven wheels). It lays within the equations that explain relative motion, and the requirements of airspeed or air flow across the wings... End Of Story. It is painfully simple, at least now it is, again, thanks to Einstein. Kettle, out now. Happy NewYear's Naysayer.[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sputnik Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Einstein's response to the Gilbert Hypothesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStewMan Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 when i crossed the einstein-podolsky-rosen bridge--i found you all were right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipschguy Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 What would Einstein say? Maybe something along the lines of "Relative to the conveyer belt the plane is motionless - a fact which is meaningless to our stated physics question regarding flight. However, relative to the air and the surrounding land, the plane is accelerating rapidly, thus allowing the wings to take tremendous advantage of Bernoulli's principles of lift, hence the plane will take off and fly." It is hard to believe people still cannot understand this simple problem after almost 40 pages of intense discussion. I think people have an inpenetrable opinion on the matter and do not even bother to read and ponder other people's insight; they are just convinced their position is right. People should be able to entertain the possibility of being wrong and then objectively analyze. I wish this principle was better taught in school, but then I guess it would be harder to push some mind washing BS agenda on our youth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 What would Einstein say? Maybe something along the lines of "Relative to the conveyer belt the plane is motionless - a fact which is meaningless to our stated physics question regarding flight. However, relative to the air and the surrounding land, the plane is accelerating rapidly, thus allowing the wings to take tremendous advantage of Bernoulli's principles of lift, hence the plane will take off and fly." It is hard to believe people still cannot understand this simple problem after almost 40 pages of intense discussion. I think people have an opinion on the matter and do not even bother to read other people's insight just convinced their position is right. We have a responsibility to entertain the possibility of being wrong and then objectively analyze. .... actually Einstein wouldn't say that. Relative to the conveyor belt, the plane moves as well. Here's a simple experiment that convinced me. Put a pencil on a sheet of paper on a table. Whip the paper out real fast, and the pencil does not move. Whip the paper out twice as fast, and the pencil still does not move. So, doubling the speed at which you pull the paper has no effect on the movement of the pencil. Now, imagine strapping a tiny jet engine on the pencil and turning on the thrust as you pull the paper..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipschguy Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Duh, Yes, Jeff you are right, the conveyer belt is moving in the opposite direction as the plane so its speed is double, not zero. It would be motionless relative to the belt if the belt were moving with the plane. Regardless, the relative motion of the belt to the plane is still meaningless in this problem. It is the relative motion of the plane to the air which gives the lift. The plane flys as I have stated repeatedly and never waivered from. Thanks for the illustration, but, except for my obvious, temporary mental blunder in my last post, I have a pretty good handle on the physics of this problem (remember, I explained it to you, when you were in the recalcitrant phase of discourse). (Hey, I lived up to my own recommendation of considering the possibility of being wrong.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sputnik Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Gilbert must've been hopelessly trapped in a quantum entanglement in the EPR paradox (mentioned by BigStewMan) when he brought Einstein into the picture. You don't need to go whining to Einstein to explain why the plane takes off. Newton (and Gallileo, if you want to get into reference frames) will do just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Duh, Yes, Jeff you are right, the conveyer belt is moving in the opposite direction as the plane so its speed is double, not zero. It would be motionless relative to the belt if the belt were moving with the plane. Regardless, the relative motion of the belt to the plane is still meaningless in this problem. It is the relative motion of the plane to the air which gives the lift. The plane flys as I have stated repeatedly and never waivered from. Thanks for the illustration, but, except for my obvious, temporary mental blunder in my last post, I have a pretty good handle on the physics of this problem (remember, I explained it to you, when you were in the recalcitrant phase of discourse). (Hey, I lived up to my own recommendation of considering the possibility of being wrong.) Recalcitrance.... It's not just for breakfast anymore! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 What would Einstein say? Maybe something along the lines of "Relative to the conveyer belt the plane is motionless - a fact which is meaningless to our stated physics question regarding flight. However, relative to the air and the surrounding land, the plane is accelerating rapidly, thus allowing the wings to take tremendous advantage of Bernoulli's principles of lift, hence the plane will take off and fly." It is hard to believe people still cannot understand this simple problem after almost 40 pages of intense discussion. I think people have an opinion on the matter and do not even bother to read other people's insight just convinced their position is right. We have a responsibility to entertain the possibility of being wrong and then objectively analyze. .... actually Einstein wouldn't say that. Relative to the conveyor belt, the plane moves as well. Here's a simple experiment that convinced me. Put a pencil on a sheet of paper on a table. Whip the paper out real fast, and the pencil does not move. Whip the paper out twice as fast, and the pencil still does not move. So, doubling the speed at which you pull the paper has no effect on the movement of the pencil. Now, imagine strapping a tiny jet engine on the pencil and turning on the thrust as you pull the paper..... YEAH!!!!!!!!!!! you got it jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipschguy Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Alright Jeff, that was funny. Thanks. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest " " Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Now that this question has been resolved, let's focus on something a little more challenging... Will she take it off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipschguy Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Given the family nature of this lovely forum, my guess is: She will not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.