Skill's weekend teaser

[Karel]

Ki Karel - welcome to T2W. I see it's your first post here. Hopefully you'll stick around for a while. Hope your interest doesn't wane as soon as this thread calms down.

GJ

Thank you and Ki to you, too. Or should it be Ji or Gi? It seems all a bit confusing here. But I stuck for 2 1/2 years so maybe'll stick a bit longer.

 

[TheBramble]

As there seems to be no further refutation to the proofs given that the plane does not take off, and as the poll also indicates more got it than not, would it be sensible to close this poll-thread and ready ourselves for Skill's next weekend teaser?

 

[Skill Leverage]

As there seems to be no further refutation to the proofs given that the plane does not take off, and as the poll also indicates more got it than not, would it be sensible to close this poll-thread and ready ourselves for Skill's next weekend teaser?

I wonder if Parliament works this way; you want to win a debate, so you just keep saying 'Nyah' to every argument given to you until the other side gives up through losing the will to live... you ever thought of running for office Brambles?

 

[Skill Leverage]

Don't even try to claim that the majority of pollers were along your apparent line of thinking; congratulations on being clever enough to completely twist the purpose of the thread away to something different entirely, and having nothing better to do with your life for the past few days than to sit and wait until I had given up completely, all due to your incorrectness during the initial problem. Well played.

Yes, the thread should be closed, as I said on about page 30.

 

[TheBramble]

Skills, my post above was a deliberate troll. And the only one I've done on this thread.

Just so you know the difference.

Relax.

 

[Technically Fundamental]

Erm planes need to moveto be able to fly...

 

[zupcon]

Erm planes need to moveto be able to fly...

VTOL ?

 

[coopster]

Ok, had to skip the odd 50 pages of the debate but my "offical ??" verdict is that brambles lost.



I only hope he is a better trader than Physicist!

 

[TheBramble]

Ok, had to skip the odd 50 pages of the debate but my "offical ??" verdict is that brambles lost.

On what basis? What is your rationale for disputing my proof? Do you have any? Or do you possess some undisclosed authority within the small world of teasers which makes your word final and binding, based on, well, nothing at all as far as I can see?

Even Brutusdog managed to come up with a ‘FFS’ before ‘it takes off’ which was wildly verbose for him (albeit incorrect too).

Maybe you should have read those 50 pages and got a little insight into what it is you’re voicing an opinion on. Then at least you would have perhaps realised you didn’t have one worth voicing.

 

[raysor]

VTOL ?

What, it doesn't move?

 

[raysor]

Is this still going?
There is no disputing the plane will move forward (and therefore have the ability to take off)
What I don't get is what is happening to the wheels relative to the surface of the conveyor belt.
Their revolutions are being 'eaten' up by the speed of the belt, yet they are still managing to move forwards with the plane.
Surely they must be slipping?
Someone must have a mathematical/physics answer otherwise it's a bit like the existence of God- you either believe or you don't.
Thank God I'm an athiest!

 

[zupcon]

What, it doesn't move?

I suppose if you wanted to be pedantic you could argue that everything is constantly moving and nothing is ever totally stationary

 

[KillPhil08]

SCUBA telescope up in royal observatory at edinburgh temperatures reach almost 6mK. That's almost stationary . (Absolute zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

 

[zupcon]

That's almost stationary QUOTE]

Almost but not quite but definately more stationary than a VTOL aircraft hovering about

 

[TheBramble]

Is this still going?
There is no disputing the plane will move forward (and therefore have the ability to take off)

UH??? What do you think I’ve been disputing for the last 500 posts? I’m wondering if anyone actually reads these posts.

What I don't get is what is happening to the wheels relative to the surface of the conveyor belt.

Skills tells us the wheels are moving in one direction and the conveyor is moving in the opposite direction - at exactly the same speed.

Their revolutions are being 'eaten' up by the speed of the belt, yet they are still managing to move forwards with the plane.

Yes, does sound strange. Could that be because the bloody thing ISN’T moving forward do you think?

Someone must have a mathematical/physics answer otherwise it's a bit like the existence of God- you either believe or you don't.

Here you go. Here’s the mathematical proof you ask for. Again.

Speed of plane’s motion forward +X. Speed of conveyor motion backward -X.

+X –X = 0.

 

[raysor]

You missed my point; the plane moves forward relative to the ground and the air.

I wanted to know if the wheels 'skid'. Which they must do. Unless they had very strong cogs to lock into the belt, then that's where all the thrust would go.
PS I am just trying to work this out for myself with limited, if not zero knowledge of the subject..

 

[raysor]

Speed of plane’s motion forward +X.

Relative to??

 

[TheBramble]

You missed my point; the plane moves forward relative to the ground and the air.

I just realised you trolled me. LOL. Well done. It doesn’t happen often. I really thought you were being completely straight, then I realised, nobody could be THAT stupid.

As you pointed out earlier, the conveyor and plane are arranged so that the conveyor takes up all the plane’s forward speed. Unless the conveyor is moving along the ground itself, neither it, nor the plane have any forward motion as you well know. You kidder you!

I wanted to know if the wheels 'skid'. Which they must do. Unless they had very strong cogs to lock into the belt, then that's where all the thrust would go.

Hahahaha…lovely. For them to skid, they’d have to be going at a different speed to the conveyor, which as Skill points out in post #1, they’re not, ever. They go at EXACTLY the same speed.

PS I am just trying to work this out for myself with limited, if not zero knowledge of the subject..

Yeah right. What a hoot. You saw me coming. Please keep it up. High comedy. I love it.

 

[TheBramble]

Relative to??

Relative to the moving conveyor belt. LOL. raysor, you crack me up. Really. I just hope everyone else appreciates your sense of humour, I know I do.

 

[peto]

Ok nearly next weekend, but I'll throw in my hat to try to end the misery. The plane takes off normally.

We must make two assumptions however which is not in the OP, one is that the wheels rotate with zero friction (i.e. the brakes are off and the bearings are perfect, so that the lightest of touch on the plane will make it move forward); the other assumption is that the inertia of the wheels spinning is negligable in relation to the inertia of the plane, with it's far greater mass.

If we suppose the conveyor is now tugged sharply towards the rear of the plane, then the plane will not move. It weighs many tons, and it's inertia will cause it to remain quite stationary, although its wheels will turn to keep pace with the conveyor (in reality there is always friction, so the plane would slowly start to move backwards until, after some considerable time it would reach the conveyors speed). Thus we see that the speed of the conveyor is quite irrelevant to the speed of the frictionless aircraft; only its wheels will move.

Now let us imagine the pilot starts his engines. The thrust created will cause the plane to begin accelerating relative to air, and it will take off in the normal way regardless of its wheel speed.

All clear now?