For all the non believers, do this since you are right in front of a computer and these things should not be hard to find. Take a piece of paper, set it on the desk, then get a round pen or pencil that can roll, set it on the left side of the paper. Begin to pull the paper to your left slowly, then push the pencil any speed you want. That is the exact same principle as a real plane.
This ad is not displayed to registered and logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on Dodge Forums!
__________________
1993 Jeep ZJ
1983 Camaro Z28
Sponsored Links
Registered users do not see this ad. Click here to register for free!
Their argument is this, to quote one poster:
[blockquote] Thrust acts accordingly to Newtons Third Law of Motion - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In the case of an aircraft, the reaction of the engines is that of forward motion, against whatever medium it is stationary. But the ground the aircraft is sitting on in this case is NOT stationary, its providing an exactly CANCELLING force pushing the aircraft back.[/blockquote] The problem here, of course, is that the poster (and Neal) cannot disengage themselves from seeing the airplane as a car. The difference between a car and a grounded airplane is that a car uses its wheels to propel itself forward, and an airplane moves itself forward by moving air. They assume that the runway moving backwards would move the plane backwards. This is what would happen with a car (that is in gear), so why not for an airplane? Well, because an airplane’s wheels are free rolling. There is obviously some friction, so there would be some small backwards force, but it would be infinitely small as compared to the forward thrust of the airplane.
You can test this with a piece of paper and a matchbox car (which has free rolling wheels like an airplane… or like a car in neutral.) Place the paper on a table, and place the matchbox car on the paper. Take your hand, and hold the car still with a lightly placed finger on top of the car. At this point you are providing no forward thrust, and the “conveyor belt” is not moving. The car remains stationary. Now, continuing to hold the airplane with a lightly placed finger, and start to pull the paper out from under the car, in the backwards direction. According to Neal’s logic, the car should push back on your finger with the same force that you are exerting on the paper… but this is not what will happen. You will find that your lightly placed finger is not stressed to any noticeable extent. The paper will slide out, and the wheels will spin, but the car will not be propelled backwards. The reason for this is is that the rotation of the wheels is not related to the movement of the matchbox car except by the very small friction component of the axle, which your lightly placed finger can easily control.
So now we have established that movement of the surface beneath a free wheeling object does not exert a noticeable force on the object. Next, we’ll see what happens when the object is trying to move forward. Attach a string to the matchbox car. Place the car at one end of the paper, and use the string to start pulling the car forward with a steady force. As the car moves forward, start pulling the paper out from under the car, backwards. Do you feel increased resistance as you pull the string? Of course not. The wheels are free rolling! Spinning the wheels does not make the object move!
Location: Alamosa, Colorado (200 yards from the Rio Grande)
Posts: 21,594
RE: finally they will put an end to this
I played with English MatchBox cars as a kid in Germany and figured out this concept at an early age. There IS something to be said for "simple toys"............
Dusty
__________________
2004 SRT-4 w/Stage 1, M/B Exhaust, BOV, 3-D Taillights, MPx Front STB, $22.97 OCC, K&N Filters. Dodge Forum's FIRST Car of the Month!!!!
Their argument is this, to quote one poster:
[blockquote] Thrust acts accordingly to Newtons Third Law of Motion - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In the case of an aircraft, the reaction of the engines is that of forward motion, against whatever medium it is stationary. But the ground the aircraft is sitting on in this case is NOT stationary, its providing an exactly CANCELLING force pushing the aircraft back.[/blockquote] The problem here, of course, is that the poster (and Neal) cannot disengage themselves from seeing the airplane as a car. The difference between a car and a grounded airplane is that a car uses its wheels to propel itself forward, and an airplane moves itself forward by moving air. They assume that the runway moving backwards would move the plane backwards. This is what would happen with a car (that is in gear), so why not for an airplane? Well, because an airplane’s wheels are free rolling. There is obviously some friction, so there would be some small backwards force, but it would be infinitely small as compared to the forward thrust of the airplane.
You can test this with a piece of paper and a matchbox car (which has free rolling wheels like an airplane… or like a car in neutral.) Place the paper on a table, and place the matchbox car on the paper. Take your hand, and hold the car still with a lightly placed finger on top of the car. At this point you are providing no forward thrust, and the “conveyor belt” is not moving. The car remains stationary. Now, continuing to hold the airplane with a lightly placed finger, and start to pull the paper out from under the car, in the backwards direction. According to Neal’s logic, the car should push back on your finger with the same force that you are exerting on the paper… but this is not what will happen. You will find that your lightly placed finger is not stressed to any noticeable extent. The paper will slide out, and the wheels will spin, but the car will not be propelled backwards. The reason for this is is that the rotation of the wheels is not related to the movement of the matchbox car except by the very small friction component of the axle, which your lightly placed finger can easily control.
So now we have established that movement of the surface beneath a free wheeling object does not exert a noticeable force on the object. Next, we’ll see what happens when the object is trying to move forward. Attach a string to the matchbox car. Place the car at one end of the paper, and use the string to start pulling the car forward with a steady force. As the car moves forward, start pulling the paper out from under the car, backwards. Do you feel increased resistance as you pull the string? Of course not. The wheels are free rolling! Spinning the wheels does not make the object move!
That is the same argument I've been trying to make for years lol
The most interesting respose I've ever heard, was that the plane would not move, because there are too many mother****in snakes on the mother****in plane lol
__________________ As a DF moderator My opinion is only my own and does not represent the DF community, it's staff, or affiliates. I moderate solely based upon guidelines and not in regards to my own personal beliefs. Rear Wiper Club Member #2
Quote:
Originally Posted by PappiDread6
Hello My Name is Pappi Dread and I have an addiction, Male DF Members
Wait - so let me get this straight. They are going to have the airplane powered up, headed in one direction. Underneath they are going to have the belt going in the opposite direction at the EXACT same speed?
The plane will not take off. The only thing that matters is the speed of the wings cutting through air. If its sitting still on a conveyor, the plane can't take off.
The opposite of this would be to put a plane in a wind tunnel, and make the wind go thorugh the tunnel, but not have the engines on or allow the plane to go forward - it will take flight in the tunnel with sufficient wind speed, because the air passing the wings is what matters.
NOW, if they increase the engine thrust to a point it is more forceful than the belt in the opposite direction, and the aircraft is able to gain enough speed, then yes, it can take off. That would be the equivalent of me running faster than my treadmill and going off the front.
So, are they setting the treadmill speed the same as the speed of the engine going forward?
FYI, some planes can fly with as little as 38mph of wind...i'll be more amazed if they can find a treadmill that big that goes 38 mph in the opposite direction.
NOW, if they increase the engine thrust to a point it is more forceful than the belt in the opposite direction, and the aircraft is able to gain enough speed, then yes, it can take off. That would be the equivalent of me running faster than my treadmill and going off the front.
Common misconception infact. See, you could not do that, because your legs have a maximum speed.... Airplane wheels do not. Get over the thought that wheels govern the speed of an airplane, wheels are merely baerings, and save for spinning them to some amazing speed at which they will overheat and seize or putting a block infront of them, nothing can be done beneith the wheels that could possibly stop forward motion of the airplane.
Very simple principle, look closely, examine each of the following words..... BECAUSE THE MOVEMENT OF THE AIRPLANE IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE GROUND, FORWARD MOTION IS GUARANTEED, FORWARD MOTION ENABLES AIR MOVEMENT OVER THE WINGS, AIR MOVENT OVER THE WINGS ENABLES LIFT.
__________________ As a DF moderator My opinion is only my own and does not represent the DF community, it's staff, or affiliates. I moderate solely based upon guidelines and not in regards to my own personal beliefs. Rear Wiper Club Member #2
Quote:
Originally Posted by PappiDread6
Hello My Name is Pappi Dread and I have an addiction, Male DF Members
Wait - so let me get this straight. They are going to have the airplane powered up, headed in one direction. Underneath they are going to have the belt going in the opposite direction at the EXACT same speed?
The plane will not take off. The only thing that matters is the speed of the wings cutting through air. If its sitting still on a conveyor, the plane can't take off.
The opposite of this would be to put a plane in a wind tunnel, and make the wind go thorugh the tunnel, but not have the engines on or allow the plane to go forward - it will take flight in the tunnel with sufficient wind speed, because the air passing the wings is what matters.
NOW, if they increase the engine thrust to a point it is more forceful than the belt in the opposite direction, and the aircraft is able to gain enough speed, then yes, it can take off. That would be the equivalent of me running faster than my treadmill and going off the front.
So, are they setting the treadmill speed the same as the speed of the engine going forward?
FYI, some planes can fly with as little as 38mph of wind...i'll be more amazed if they can find a treadmill that big that goes 38 mph in the opposite direction.
I still don't understand what their test is going to be, but if they do what I bolded in the above post, the plane will NOT take off.
I understand both sides of the argument and have thought both ways about it myself. The biggest part is that the plane has to be in motion to even get the treadmill going and since the plane WILL be in motion, not staticin a motionless position, it will eventually have the airflow over the wings necessary for lift. If they were to start the treadmill in advance of the planes movement and accelerated it sufficiently they could keep the plane stationary and flightless, but this is not the question, the question is matching the planes speed with the treadmill meaningthat the plane would need movement to get it started as I previously mentioned. Or we could use a Harrier with it's VTOL and say to hell with all of it.
But thats not the way they are going to test it. They are going to put a small prop plane on a large tarp and pull it in one direction via truck while the plane is facing in the other direction, the pilot is ONLY going to give the plane enough forward motion to counter-act the friction of the tarp and the wheels to remain in the same spot. The plane will not take off.
But thats not the way they are going to test it. They are going to put a small prop plane on a large tarp and pull it in one direction via truck while the plane is facing in the other direction, the pilot is ONLY going to give the plane enough forward motion to counter-act the friction of the tarp and the wheels to remain in the same spot. The plane will not take off.
I will agree with you on this type of test. The wording is still misleading. Powering up to only offset the tarp is mearly trying to offsett the bearing friction, which is much of nothing. It goes back to the matchbox car and piece of paper example.
Now, continuing to hold the airplane with a lightly placed finger, and start to pull the paper out from under the car, in the backwards direction. According to Neal’s logic, the car should push back on your finger with the same force that you are exerting on the paper… but this is not what will happen. You will find that your lightly placed finger is not stressed to any noticeable extent.
With that said... your finger will be replaced with the power it takes to offset the bearing friction. As with the bearing friction on the matchbox car's wheels.
RE: finally they will put an end to this
