Page 34 of 43 FirstFirst ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ... LastLast
Results 826 to 850 of 1065
  1. #826
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    my own little world
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by east or bust View Post
    My understanding is that the plane does not take off under ideal conditions… as in the wheel bearings are frictionless and the tires don't explode… The only way it could is if the air speed resulting from the friction between the treadmill and air exceeds that required to provide the necessary amount of lift. Is this correct so far? Disclaimer, I didn't read any of this thread.
    The treadmill doesn't act upon the plane to keep it stationary, only to match the speed of the wheels. The plane will move and take off if the force of the jet engines can overcome the friction between the wheels and whatever the treadmill is made of.
    focus.

  2. #827
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    my own little world
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    ...So the wheels control the treadmill speed and the thrust controls its force (since airspeed must remain zero as you've shown).
    False premise. The system isn't designed to control airspeed. Wheelspeed = -treadmill speed. That's the equation. Nothing else has been defined. Thrust doesn't control the force of the treadmill!

    If wheelspeed cancels out treadmill speed, then the problem becomes only whether the engines can overcome the friction between the wheels and the treadmill.
    focus.

  3. #828
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,990
    Plane goes back in time.

  4. #829
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SF & the Ho
    Posts
    5,638
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    Plane goes back in time.
    To 1984 and meets KITT...On a truck

  5. #830
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustonen View Post
    False premise. The system isn't designed to control airspeed. Wheelspeed = -treadmill speed. That's the equation. Nothing else has been defined. Thrust doesn't control the force of the treadmill!

    If wheelspeed cancels out treadmill speed, then the problem becomes only whether the engines can overcome the friction between the wheels and the treadmill.
    Edit to attempt to be concise: that wasn't a premise at all, I arrived at that conclusion by applying Newtonian mechanics to the plane and wheels given the stated characteristic of the treadmill.

    Long version: You are still neglecting the inertia of the wheels. That doesn't work when the treadmill potentially has to accelerate Fast to keep up with the slightest rotation of the wheels and then doubles their speed and thus it's own ad infinitum. Fortunately calculus offers a better way to understand that scenario. (And fortunately is probably an understatement; where would the world be without the ability to understand impossibly powerful treadmills?!?) As such, the limit of the plane's forward velocity (airspeed, sans wind) is zero even as thrust is applied because even rocking forward results in a huge force being applied by the treadmill. But if the treadmill applies more force than the thrust the plane moves backwards, reversing the trend of the wheels and cutting back on the treadmill speed. The definition requires that the treadmill move at whatever speed is needed to match the wheels and (because the plane can't move without requiring infinite acceleration of the wheels and a correspondingly infinite force to do that) also whatever force is needed to match the thrust. Therefore, those two variables are "controlled" by the engines and the wheels. Via this magical control mechanism with instantaneous response.

    Once you account for the inertia of the wheels instead of assuming that the thrust only has to overcome friction you notice that you can practically ignore friction and arrive at the conclusion that the thrust can still be matched by the treadmill and therefore, according to the given fact that it matches wheel speed, the thrust will be matched as well. The energy thus used will go a little bit to friction and mostly to spinning up the wheels. Until they explode or seize and stop spinning, at which point the treadmill does likewise and the plane slides away toward liftoff.
    Last edited by jono; 10-14-2016 at 11:24 PM.

  6. #831
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Here, wishing I was there !!
    Posts
    85
    More to the point, when it lands on the treadmill does it stop immediately ?
    Find a Path That Captures Your Heart and Follow it to its End !!

  7. #832
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    3,423
    Come on ! This thread needs to be in the hall of fame.
    "Typically euro, french in particular, in my opinion. It's the same skiing or climbing there. They are completely unfazed by their own assholeness. Like it's normal." - srsosbso

  8. #833
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    my own little world
    Posts
    2,393

    A jet plane on a large treadmill

    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    Edit to attempt to be concise: that wasn't a premise at all, I arrived at that conclusion by applying Newtonian mechanics to the plane and wheels given the stated characteristic of the treadmill.

    Long version: You are still neglecting the inertia of the wheels. That doesn't work when the treadmill potentially has to accelerate Fast to keep up with the slightest rotation of the wheels and then doubles their speed and thus it's own ad infinitum. Fortunately calculus offers a better way to understand that scenario. (And fortunately is probably an understatement; where would the world be without the ability to understand impossibly powerful treadmills?!?) As such, the limit of the plane's forward velocity (airspeed, sans wind) is zero even as thrust is applied because even rocking forward results in a huge force being applied by the treadmill. But if the treadmill applies more force than the thrust the plane moves backwards, reversing the trend of the wheels and cutting back on the treadmill speed. The definition requires that the treadmill move at whatever speed is needed to match the wheels and (because the plane can't move without requiring infinite acceleration of the wheels and a correspondingly infinite force to do that) also whatever force is needed to match the thrust. Therefore, those two variables are "controlled" by the engines and the wheels. Via this magical control mechanism with instantaneous response.

    Once you account for the inertia of the wheels instead of assuming that the thrust only has to overcome friction you notice that you can practically ignore friction and arrive at the conclusion that the thrust can still be matched by the treadmill and therefore, according to the given fact that it matches wheel speed, the thrust will be matched as well. The energy thus used will go a little bit to friction and mostly to spinning up the wheels. Until they explode or seize and stop spinning, at which point the treadmill does likewise and the plane slides away toward liftoff.
    No. The inertia of the wheels is a factor in re: the treadmill speed matching mechanism (makes instant infinity impossible without infinite force) but has nothing to do with the jet engine acting on the airplane outside of the mechanism itself effectively locking the wheels.

    Imagine pushing on a cart that has a giant lead wheel mounted to it so that it could spin freely, and that every time you moved the cart, the wheel would spin instantly in the opposite direction at a high speed (lacks context, which is clue #1 you're on the wrong track). What effect do you think the wheel's spinning inertia will have on your ability to push the cart?

    Again, you're adding stuff to the problem that doesn't logically make any sense. Wheelspeed = -treadmill speed. That literally means the wheels can only slide forward, not roll. They'll slide at the same rate, no matter how fast they're spinning. I contend that this impossible machine will result in a locked wheel, but it doesn't actually matter; if you're cool with infinite force and infinite velocities, whatever, have fun.
    focus.

  9. #834
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,836
    Infinite forces/speeds are specifically not involved, because the wheels and tires have non-zero mass.

    We do not disagree on the major points, though. Eventually the thing slides after the wheels blow up, but it sounds like you're saying the conditions of the problem require the brakes to be applied. That's not true. There is no mention of locking the wheels and if they spin on real bearings or frictionless ones the mass of the wheels holds the plane still either way as the wheels accelerate to failure. After which, sliding.

    The giant lead wheels would take a lot of force to move, right? That's just a proportional change. These wheels take a lot of force to accelerate to failure--all the engines' thrust, as it happens. Because in order to achieve the condition that treadmill speed = -wheel speed the force applied to the wheels will be equal to the thrust; if it's less the plane goes forward and it would never be more because exceeding thrust would mean going faster than the wheels, which it never does.

  10. #835
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    my own little world
    Posts
    2,393

    A jet plane on a large treadmill

    No, I don't care about brakes. Do you?

    My point with the wheel is that the rotation of the wheel has nothing to do with your ability to move it. You aren't connected to the wheel. The rotational inertia doesn't affect anything. Neither is the jet engine connected to the airplane's wheels, at least in terms of rotational inertia. The mass of the wheels is still a factor, but probably mostly irrelevant in the context of everything else going on.

    "Accelerate to failure" is irrelevant. The failure of the wheel/treadmill mechanism isn't particularly important outside of the difference it makes to the amount of friction the jet engines have to overcome.

    You're still over complicating it. The treadmill is impossible, but that impossibility doesn't logically extend to the application of power by the jet engine. The treadmill isn't powered by the jet engine, even indirectly. Some mysterious force works to match speed of treadmill and wheels; whether that force holds everything static or if infinite things happen (which isn't any more logical, mind you that infinity isn't actually a number, like "10" or "1 million") the end result is the same.

    Again, the treadmill is Not designed to keep the plane stationary, it's only designed to cancel out the ability of the wheels to provide a frictionless interface.
    focus.

  11. #836
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Warm, Flat and Dry
    Posts
    3,308
    Proof that the U.S. school systems are failing the country.
    "if the city is visibly one of humankind's greatest achievements, its uncontrolled evolution also can lead to desecration of both nature and the human spirit."
    -- Melvin G. Marcus 1979

  12. #837
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,836
    The engines and the wheels are connected to the plane, the wheels through bearings that might as well be frictionless. That indicates that the sum of the forces between the wheels and strut/plane in the horizontal (x) is zero. We also agree that the plane does not roll forward, and being connected by static friction to the treadmill, the tires do not slide unless their friction coefficient falls below 0.835 (see DJSapp's calcs).

    Actually writing the equations we have

    F (x, treadmill) - F (x, bearing) = 0

    Or simply,
    F (x, treadmill) = F (x, bearing)

    Similarly, since the plane does not accelerate relative to the wheels, the sum of the forces on the plane (ex.wheels) are known to be:

    F (x, bearing) - F (Thrust) = 0

    Or simply,
    F (x, bearing) = F (Thrust)

    Therefore F (x, treadmill) = F (Thrust)

    So where does all that force go? Into accelerating the wheels according to T = I * alpha where T = F (Thrust) x tire radius, or

    alpha = F (Thrust)*(r)/(Izz, wheels)

    Until the tires fail.

    It's not that there's a connection specifically, it's that the feedback mechanism, whatever it is, can't do its job without conforming to the above equations. In order to keep the speeds matched the force between the tires and the treadmill will be equal to the thrust as long as the plane is stationary. The radial force in the wheel bearings exactly counters the thrust, which is what keeps the plane stationary in the force realm, while in the velocity realm the same is achieved (and that's where the feedback connection lies, of course) by matching speeds. So in a way I'm stating this backwards, but the result is the same, as it must always be.

  13. #838
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SF & the Ho
    Posts
    5,638
    Other than being a complete asshat, what is it you are trying to prove?

  14. #839
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustonen View Post
    No, I don't care about brakes. Do you?
    Obviously I'm assuming brakes are off (although using a little brake and/or less than full throttle would slow wheel acceleration and increase the time to failure). I was just responding to your assertion that the impossible machine would result in locked wheels. Hopefully you can see how the only way that would be true is if the brakes were locked; if the wheels are free to spin they will spin...fast.

  15. #840
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by mcski View Post
    Other than being a complete asshat, what is it you are trying to prove?
    What is the thread about? I'm saying that with this slight variation on the original (the treadmill matches wheel speed in the opposite direction, rather than plane speed) if the only impossible machine in the system is the treadmill then starting the plane from rest and applying thrust the plane will remain stationary while the wheels and treadmill accelerate quite rapidly until the tires and maybe the wheels explode. Then the plane slides on down the treadmill, picking up speed on its stubs and throwing off sparks until it has enough speed to lift off. The math behind that might require a degree or a course in dynamics or at least insane dedication to the study of mixing possible and impossible machines, and maybe that's not your cup of tea. But if you could watch it happen you'd see a plane start its engines and sit there for a brief moment before the tires flew apart as the treadmill sped up really dramatically and then stopped when whatever's left of the axles froze solidly to the struts. Then the plane would take off, a little slowly and with the aforementioned sparks. You'd be wearing safety glasses, of course, so you wouldn't shoot your eye out. The plane probably lands next to KITT on the trailer cruising along somewhere on I-5, but that's just wild speculation. The rest is absolute fact, as is obvious to the most casual observer.

  16. #841
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    in a frozen jungle
    Posts
    2,145
    Proof that the U.S. school systems are failing the country.
    Well at least they can feel better about their speelling


    and that they got telenater to post!
    Scientists now have decisive molecular evidence that humans and chimpanzees once had a common momma and that this lineage had previously split from monkeys.

  17. #842
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,990
    It's essentially a frictionless surface, the plane takes off, yeesh.

  18. #843
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,899
    Yeah, of course it takes off.

    The wheel bearings spinning faster and faster and failing theory ignores OP's original assumption:

    Quote Originally Posted by "The Big One" View Post
    This conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane's speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction).
    "Plane's speed" = air speed. Applying this assumption, if takeoff air speed is 185mph, the wheels would spin per ground/treadmill approach speed of 370mph. No biggie. Certainly nowhere near the speed necessary to burn up the bearings.

  19. #844
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    It's essentially a frictionless surface, the plane takes off, yeesh.
    Originally, yes. I could be wrong, but I didn't think anyone was still hung up on the original. It's when the treadmill offers to match the speed of the wheels that the frictionless assumption fails.

  20. #845
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,899
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    I didn't think anyone was still hung up on the original.
    Hung up? WTF? This thread is about a thought experiment based on the assumptions in the OP. Duh. Anyone can win an argument if he can change the assumptions.

  21. #846
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,990
    Yeah I wasn't aware the question had changed but I did skip about 35 pages of the thread so hey.

  22. #847
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by grskier View Post
    This is going around the book face now Attachment 190120
    This post from grskier changed the question and with it the answer...sort of.

  23. #848
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    7,661
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    I have a new perspective on this; if the treadmill could operate at infinite speeds with infinite acceleration, but the plane was limited by normal material / bearing capabilities the wheel bearings or wheels would fail, exploding or melting before the plane ever moved forward an inch. In a perfect treadmill system the wheels would almost instantaneously accelerate to failure speeds, rendering it .

    If the wheels materials were made perfect and able to accelerate to infinite speeds it would still sit in place if friction still existed.

    Remove friction and the plane takes off.

    Im drunk / buzzing on a cigar.
    Quote Originally Posted by doughboyshredder View Post
    This was my answer years ago and many pages back

    In order for the plane to take off it must be able to achieve forward motion. If the treadmill perfectly opposed the thrust of the plane the wheel bearings melt and the plane does a nose dive
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    The engines and the wheels are connected to the plane, the wheels through bearings that might as well be frictionless. That indicates that the sum of the forces between the wheels and strut/plane in the horizontal (x) is zero. We also agree that the plane does not roll forward, and being connected by static friction to the treadmill, the tires do not slide unless their friction coefficient falls below 0.835 (see DJSapp's calcs).

    Actually writing the equations we have

    F (x, treadmill) - F (x, bearing) = 0

    Or simply,
    F (x, treadmill) = F (x, bearing)

    Similarly, since the plane does not accelerate relative to the wheels, the sum of the forces on the plane (ex.wheels) are known to be:

    F (x, bearing) - F (Thrust) = 0

    Or simply,
    F (x, bearing) = F (Thrust)

    Therefore F (x, treadmill) = F (Thrust)

    So where does all that force go? Into accelerating the wheels according to T = I * alpha where T = F (Thrust) x tire radius, or

    alpha = F (Thrust)*(r)/(Izz, wheels)

    Until the tires fail.

    It's not that there's a connection specifically, it's that the feedback mechanism, whatever it is, can't do its job without conforming to the above equations. In order to keep the speeds matched the force between the tires and the treadmill will be equal to the thrust as long as the plane is stationary. The radial force in the wheel bearings exactly counters the thrust, which is what keeps the plane stationary in the force realm, while in the velocity realm the same is achieved (and that's where the feedback connection lies, of course) by matching speeds. So in a way I'm stating this backwards, but the result is the same, as it must always be.
    Dude you might be a rocket scientist or something but the only way the wheels on an airplane roll are by forward or backward motion of the plane. In this scenario of a treadmill that can instantly match wheel speed(impossible) the only way the treadmill can match wheel speed is if the plane is moving forward down the treadmill for take off. For a 747 with a takeoff speed of 180 mph the treadmill would only have to go that fast. The plane would still be moving forward because it moves by thrust acting on the atmosphere not powered wheels. It will take off. Even in the theoretically impossible scenario of a treadmill with infinite speed it wouldn't matter because a 747 takes off around 180 mph.

  24. #849
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    calgary
    Posts
    705
    Simple answer. Lock the brakes, wheels don't turn, treadmill moves in direction of plane and plane takes off. 0 wheel speed. Profit?
    Man, It was great...

  25. #850
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Central OR
    Posts
    4,928
    ^^^ Winning!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •