Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

a question

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by sledheadak, Nov 29, 2005.

  1. sledheadak

    sledheadak 1/2 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Posts:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    anchorage,alaska
    a plane is standing on a movable runway( something like a conveyor).as the plane moves the conveyor moves but in the opposite direction.the conveyor has a system that tracks the speed of the plane and matches it exactly in the opposite direction.

    the question is

    will the plane take off or not?
     
  2. Corey 78K5

    Corey 78K5 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    13,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Humboldt County, CA
    No. Because the plane would basically be staying in one spot, therefore it would be unable to reach enough speed for wings to create lift.
     
  3. mikey_d05

    mikey_d05 1 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Posts:
    10,453
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    My guess would be hypothetically no. The engines themselves wouldn't draw enough air over the wings to produce the proper amount of lift. If they did, you'd be taking off vertically and the Navy would pay you big bucks for the technology.
     
  4. Inu-Hanyou1776

    Inu-Hanyou1776 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Posts:
    1,345
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Murphy, NC
    Nope. It won't be taking off. No way for it to get moving forward to create any lift under the wings so it can take off.

    EDIT - Also, unless you know of a way to break the laws physics, this ain't happening no matter what you try too.
     
  5. CustomChevy

    CustomChevy 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Posts:
    4,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
    definatly no liftoff.
     
  6. Corey 78K5

    Corey 78K5 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    13,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Humboldt County, CA
    I think the big question is what made You think up this stuff. Who would need a mach 2 conveyor belt anyways :rolleyes:


    :D :D
     
  7. nc87k5

    nc87k5 3/4 ton status

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Posts:
    5,231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I think the staring into his avatar made him come up with that question. :D :wink1:
     
  8. CustomChevy

    CustomChevy 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Posts:
    4,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

    This man is onto something.
     
  9. Inu-Hanyou1776

    Inu-Hanyou1776 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Posts:
    1,345
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Murphy, NC
    You may be right. My ava's not getting people wanting to wear white wigs and fake dog ears now isn't it?
     
  10. Corey 78K5

    Corey 78K5 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    13,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Humboldt County, CA
    I thought Your avatar was supposed to be a rat!
     
  11. BigOrange90Jimmy

    BigOrange90Jimmy 1/2 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Posts:
    2,923
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC
    Yes, it will still take off. The conveyor is not affecting the atmosphere. It is, however, causing the wheels to spin at twice the speed they normally would. Effectively, you would overwork the speed rating of the wheel bearings, rendering the landing gear useless, so it wouldn't matter if it took off or not because it will never be able to land safely.

    Let's look at this another way. If I strapped a rocket to your ass and put you on a treadmill with the same characteristics, you would still move forward because the treadmill has no effect on the surrounding atmosphere.
     
  12. mikey_d05

    mikey_d05 1 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Posts:
    10,453
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Different scenario. Rockets generate thrust regardless of the atmosphere (or lack thereof) surrounding them. You'd still move forward but not create lift.

    After re-reading your statement though, it would make sense for this to work in the case of a jet also, seeing as how you'd be moving forward because movement is generated in relationship to the surrounding atmosphere and not the ground.

    ****, what do I know, I'm buzzed and going into mechanical enginnering, not aeronautical.
     
  13. BigOrange90Jimmy

    BigOrange90Jimmy 1/2 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Posts:
    2,923
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC
    That's what I was thinking anyway, that jet engines and rockets both use the principle of thrust, so they would move regardless.

    However, I'm not going into any kind of engineering, so I'm even more less qualified to answer. :haha:



    I do have a better question for the guys here though. Say you're traveling at the speed of light and you turn your headlights on. What happens?
     
  14. mikey_d05

    mikey_d05 1 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Posts:
    10,453
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Your headlights would shine ahead normally. When you accelerate things close to the speed of light and shine light past them, the velocity of the light as observed from said particle is still PASSING you at the speed of light. Doesn't sound logical but that's how it works. S.O.L. ( :haha: ) travel is theoretically possible but many studies show that it might actually be impossible for a normal particle.
     
  15. Inu-Hanyou1776

    Inu-Hanyou1776 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Posts:
    1,345
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Murphy, NC
    Don't they also believe that time travel may also be possible via near-lightspeed travel too since time slows considerably relative to a person who's travelling close to the speed of light?
     
  16. mikey_d05

    mikey_d05 1 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Posts:
    10,453
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Correct, that's one of the current possibilities being explored by scientists for long distance research missions.

    One of the potential problems is how much the world or universe changes while they're in flight. Communications couldn't be made, millions of generations could be born by the time they return, the world could end, and a more advanced craft could pass them in flight and return before they even got there.

    It's a question without a good answer really.
     
  17. Inu-Hanyou1776

    Inu-Hanyou1776 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Posts:
    1,345
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Murphy, NC
    One of the other, but this time very minor (more like annoyance) problems is one that the Star Trek TNG staff looked at when writing the Start Trek TNG Technical Manual (I have a copy, but the book is now out of print).

    Anyway, this problem is related to time slowing relative to the party travelling at near-lightspeed conditions, but is not as drastic as what you mentioned. Instead, the problem is one of a spacecraft's onboard clocks slowing and getting further and further off-base from a common universal time-base reference clock (i.e. Federation's Time Base Beacons in Star Trek) due to extended travel at near-lightspeed conditions. This causes the starship's crew to have to re-set the ship's clocks back to the time-base reference almost daily if impulse travel is used for extended periods.

    As you can guess, this gets aggravating and is the reason in Star Trek why warp-speed, even low warp-speed, is preferred over impulse engines even when maybe all your're doing is going from the inner planets of a solar system out to the outer planets and impulse engines are really only used for stuff like changing the orbit while orbiting a planet or moving between the planet and it's moon or between the planet's moons.
     
  18. cbbr

    cbbr 1 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Posts:
    14,681
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High velocity, Low altitude
    ThHe thrust would cause the jet to keep up with(or cause to move) the belt. The jet relies on rear directed thrust for forward movement and air pressure to gain lift. Because the jet would be standing still relative to the atmosphere (all thrust directed to the rear), there would be no air pressure differential on the jet, no lift, so it would not take off unless it is a Marine jet (harrier) and can direct the thrust down for VTOL. Once again, the Marines have solved your problem.

    Rockets direct thrust and don't rely on lift from wings, so the problem never exists. Marines have rockets also. :D
     
  19. Fubeca

    Fubeca 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Posts:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Denver Area
    If it were a jet - the fact that the conveyor is moving would have no effect. If the engine were on, the conveyor would not stop the jet from moving so it would take off normally. As said before, the conveyor can only effect the wheel speed - since the thrust of the plane is created by the jet engine reacting with the air around it - not by ground speed, the conveyor would not be able to stop the forward movement of the plane.
     
  20. Roz

    Roz 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Posts:
    900
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego
    i agree, the forward motion is gained by forward thrust not by transference of motion to tires. so tire speed is irrelevant. the added friction of the tires going 2 as fast may mean an extra few pounds of thrust but thats about it
     

Share This Page