Skill's weekend teaser

[TheBramble]

Are you saying that you agree the plane would take off if the belt was moving at a constant 100mph in the opposite direction to the way the plane is facing? If you are, then we can all go home...

Wouldn't matter how fast it was moving in the other direction, in principle, if we ignore inertia and friction and a bunch of other physical practicalities.

If you're allowing the plane's engines' thrust to provide forward motion without any other constraints, it will take off if it reaches V1 - which is it's take off airspeed, usually close to if not exactly the same as it's groundspeed, but that relationship need not necessarily be so from a theoretical aerodynamics viewpoint.

Yes, let’s. Which flight are you getting?

 

[Skill Leverage]

Hmm, I think it's over until he reads my other posts... maybe if I delete them really quickly...

 

[Skill Leverage]

I'm now praying he didn't get a chance to read them, so that we can all move on

 

[TheBramble]

I think you're being far too pedantic here, and besides mate, we adjusted the question to fix it a long time ago as I've already said and you continued to argue with us.

I'm solving for the teaser as it is currently worded.

If the conveyor is rigged to exactly match the wheels but in the opposite direction..

THE PLANE WONT TAKE OFF.

 

[Skill Leverage]

too late.

 

[Skill Leverage]

I'm solving for the teaser as it is currently worded.

If the conveyor is rigged to exactly match the wheels but in the opposite direction..

THE PLANE WONT TAKE OFF.

Why wait until page 50-something to tell us you had a problem with the original wording of the question (which was solved AGES AGO), but you could see sense in what eeeeeeeeveryone else was saying?

Sorry mate, but I smell bull****.

 

[Skill Leverage]

And I could prove it, by quoting what you've said previously. I just cannot be bothered.

If anyone else can be bothered; read over the entire thread, in particular MrBrambles' posts, and make up your minds whether he sounds like someone who knows the plane will take off under slightly different conditions and is just pointing out a problem within the OP, or whether he sounds like someone who completely missed the point of the thing, realised his mistake and fell back on something that was mentioned by ezreddy DAYS ago, in order to save face.

SL

 

[Skill Leverage]

MrBrambles I already offered you a massive olive branch a few pages ago, yet you decided to continue to push this. If you really do just like arguing for argument's sake, then please find someone else to do it with. This thread is now dead; all conclusions have been drawn, and I am not going to get drawn into an argument about whether you understood the whole time and were just being clever, or not.

SL

 

[Mr. Charts]

Plane will remain stationary.
Isn't moving relative to the air.
That's it.
Richard

Above from day 1

OK so after all of this fun filled thread, I answered the PRECISE question correctly way back down the foggy ruins of time.

Any application to join we few "Band of Brothers" will be severely scrutinized but my old friend :cheesy: TheBramble doesn't have to apply - honorary membership for him.

Richard

 

[Skill Leverage]

Above from day 1

OK so after all of this fun filled thread, I answered the PRECISE question correctly way back down the foggy ruins of time.

Any application to join we few "Band of Brothers" will be severely scrutinized but my old friend :cheesy: TheBramble doesn't have to apply - honorary membership for him.

Richard

Sorry Mr Charts, but that doesn't prove anything at all. If you, or Brambles, had said something like Ezreddy said, then you'd be in a much stronger position. Neither of you did though, so I'm inclined to believe you're both full of poo.

 

[KillPhil08]

cant believe a weekend teaser is taking all ****ing week.

 

[Mr. Charts]

As you wish, SL.
Whatever.
You didn't ask for proof in the question......

 

[Skill Leverage]

'Plane doesn't move relative to air' is what people who think the plane's engines are counteracted by the belt say, NOT someone who thinks 'the initial conditions of the questions imply a near impossible situation'. End of story.

 

[Mr. Charts]

I didn't say, "the plane's engines are counteracted by the belt ". Don't accuse me of absurdity.
No point in you telling me what I think, SL, because you don't know, you only make false assumptions.
Now I am again offering you an olive branch - accept it for the sake of your blood pressure and don't tell me I'm full of poo........or this thread might go on forever till the mods close it or you have a stroke......neither of which I want to see happen.
This is a public board. Dissent comes with the territory. Don't let it eat you up.
Chill, man.
Richard

 

[TheBramble]

Sorry Mr Charts, but that doesn't prove anything at all. If you, or Brambles, had said something like Ezreddy said, then you'd be in a much stronger position. Neither of you did though, so I'm inclined to believe you're both full of poo.

Guiess I'd better start shorting poo then.

That's one contract I definitely wouldn't want to rollover.

 

[Mr. Charts]

Guiess I'd better start shorting poo then.

That's one contract I definitely wouldn't want to rollover.

Well production is on a secular uptrend due to increasing poopulation so selling poo puts should provide a nice on going income stream for the more fundamentally inclined.
On the other hand a strangle in a range just above and slightly below current levels should also be profitable since the secular uptrend is so slow.
I don't know if there are different types of poo commodity available as in Texas light crude etc.
But then of course I know absolutely nothing about options and am happy to hear what others have to say.
About options, not poo.
Do our poo experts here buy covered calls............., for example?
Some will understand the significance of the last line with a little added thought.

 

[TheBramble]

Given the currently relatively low premium on poo Richard (there's a massive over-supply), you're best hedging with a sphincter-neutral strategy.

Long underlying poo a sell a long poo future.

Be careful with the volatility though Richard. I hear on Bloomberg that Obama is planning on matching the TARP funds with a similar asset relief program, but it will be focused on waste product handling technology. Not sure what it will be called, but they (Bloomberg) are tentatively calling it a Compost Review Assets Program.

 

[TheBramble]

MrBrambles I already offered you a massive olive branch

Calm down old son. You'll do well to remember that those who offer the olive branch are typically on the losing side. Same as those that want to negotiate or compromise or offer a deal.

In any event, point has been proven, plane wont fly under current wording and never would under any of the variations you’ve had.

Your biggest problem IMHO is that you don’t appear to be reading what’s being posted or if you do, don’t focus long enough on it to construct a contextually valid response. You seem to fall back on what you think you already know – which was wrong in the first place.

Don’t take it personally. I like you. As I mentioned by PM, I was full of ****e too when I was 24.

To me you are the quintessential uncarved block. Full of potential.

 

[Skill Leverage]

'Never would fly under any of the variations you've had'

So are you saying that the plane won't fly if the belt matches the speed of the plane in the opposite direction?

FYI, the people offering the olive branch often are on the losing side; they can however also be guys who, after 66 pages of arguing on an internet forum, realise that's life's just too short, even at the tender age of 24...

 

[Mr. Charts]

Hoi Bramble!
"those who offer the olive branch are typically on the losing side"
Got to disagree with the instant impression and agree with the caveat, "typically".
Some would do well to distinguish between mistaken first impressions and the reality of careful reading followed by thought, rather than emotion.
Some of us are just magnanimous b*st**ds
Well, very, very occasionally.
Richard