Riddle Me This......... - Page 13

**Charliewool** · 01-12-2005, 04:36 PM

This reminds of Monty Python... "did you pay for the full 10 minute arguement or just the 1 minute one"?.. "No, you didn't",.. "Yes I did" ..."No, you didn't"

(In this case a ing THIRTY SIX hour arguement!)

42.57lb · 01-12-2005, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

ok, so your saying that regardless of forward thrust.. the conveyor would absorb all forward movement right?

nope, the it wouldn't absorb it, it would counter it.

Casper · 01-12-2005, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 42.57lb

nope, the it wouldn't absorb it, it would counter it.

Ok, then lets use your logic here.

The conveyor will move at the same forward speed as the plane countering all movement right?

And the conveyor is designed to travel exactly at the same speed the plane is moving forward thrust making the plane stand still right? Therefore making no lift.

How fast is the plane moving forward? The answer has to be zero mph because its stuck on a conveyor.

Am I right so far?

42.57lb · 01-12-2005, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Ok, then lets use your logic here.

The conveyor will move at the same forward speed as the plane countering all movement right?

And the conveyor is designed to travel exactly at the same speed the plane is moving forward thrust making the plane stand still right? Therefore making no lift.

How fast is the plane moving forward? The answer has to be zero mph because its stuck on a conveyor.

Am I right so far?

iiish... yeah.

OK! How about this, the tarmac would have to moving at a rate such that the friction it produciton with the wheels was equal to the thrust. That rate, you are saying is way higher is the thrust to friction.

Casper · 01-12-2005, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 42.57lb

iiish... yeah.

OK! How about this, the tarmac would have to moving at a rate such that the friction it produciton with the wheels was equal to the thrust. That rate, you are saying is way higher is the thrust to friction.

Therefore.. if the conveyor is designed to move at exactly the opposite speed in reverse of what the plane is moving forward… and the plane is not moving forward.. then how fast is the conveyor going?

Your own logic says it cant move either. Explain to me how a plane with its engine(s) running flat out, no brakes and on a totally still conveyor, not tied down and in perfect working order is just sitting there going nowhere please? Explain that to me and I’ll concede.

stiddy · 01-12-2005, 04:51 PM

hahahahahahaha omg i love it! is it over now?

Casper · 01-12-2005, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 42.57lb

iiish... yeah.

OK! How about this, the tarmac would have to moving at a rate such that the friction it produciton with the wheels was equal to the thrust. That rate, you are saying is way higher is the thrust to friction.

The riddle said quite clearly "This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction). "

So to make your logic even believeable to yourself you need to change the rules?
Stick to the rules of the riddle. Explain how the conveyor is even moving please.

DivHunter · 01-12-2005, 04:57 PM

HAHAHA wheel friction is the pause HAHAHA that's hilarious.

Inertia mate, inertia. The engines don't instant output their maximum power either.

There is a point where the spinning wheels are only holding the aircraft up as it moves forward on the conveyer no matter how fast the vonveyer spins it is exerting all it's force into the spinning motion of the wheels none in a reward direction in relation to the plane. The plane imcreases thrust moving it forward, the conveyer speeds up but all it does is spin the wheels faster as the plane continues to accelerate and then take off. Net result, flying plane with really fast spinning wheels.

You can't assume that the conveyer can spin as fast as it wants without friction or that there is 0 time taken to recalculate the speed of the conveyer with such blatantly vague parameters and then assume that the plane suffers from such forces as well.

So it's a harrier and takes off vertically, conveyer or no conveyer

OK. So if a plane landed on a conveyer going the opposite direction and matching it's speed would it stop dead?

Casper · 01-12-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairmont99

HAHAHA wheel friction is the pause HAHAHA that's hilarious.

Inertia mate, inertia. The engines don't instant output their maximum power either.

There is a point where the spinning wheels are only holding the aircraft up as it moves forward on the conveyer no matter how fast the vonveyer spins it is exerting all it's force into the spinning motion of the wheels none in a reward direction in relation to the plane. The plane imcreases thrust moving it forward, the conveyer speeds up but all it does is spin the wheels faster as the plane continues to accelerate and then take off. Net result, flying plane with really fast spinning wheels.

You can't assume that the conveyer can spin as fast as it wants without friction or that there is 0 time taken to recalculate the speed of the conveyer with such blatantly vague parameters and then assume that the plane suffers from such forces as well.

So it's a harrier and takes off vertically, conveyer or no conveyer

OK. So if a plane landed on a conveyer going the opposite direction and matching it's speed would it stop dead?

Hang on, let him answer my question first. I've already gone over this with him, he didnt accept it.

To repeat my question..... Therefore.. if the conveyor is designed to move at exactly the opposite speed in reverse of what the plane is moving forward… and the plane is not moving forward.. then how fast is the conveyor going?

Your own logic says it cant move either. Explain to me how a plane with its engine(s) running flat out, no brakes and on a totally still conveyor, not tied down and in perfect working order is just sitting there going nowhere please? Explain that to me and I’ll concede.

42.57lb · 01-12-2005, 05:05 PM

:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Hang on, let him answer my question first. I've already gone over this with him, he didnt accept it.

To repeat my question..... Therefore.. if the conveyor is designed to move at exactly the opposite speed in reverse of what the plane is moving forward… and the plane is not moving forward.. then how fast is the conveyor going?

Your own logic says it cant move either. Explain to me how a plane with its engine(s) running flat out, no brakes and on a totally still conveyor, not tied down and in perfect working order is just sitting there going nowhere please? Explain that to me and I’ll concede.

:baby bott let me get back to the drawing board.

No, let's have a beer

: my "logic" appears flawed, I cannot argue further.

:

: :togo:

stiddy · 01-12-2005, 05:08 PM

100% now agree with casper????

for sh#ts and giggles i dont.. can you explain it to me again... LOL no.. im kidding..

Casper · 01-12-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 42.57lb

:

:baby bott let me get back to the drawing board.

No, let's have a beer

: my "logic" appears flawed, I cannot argue further.

:

: :togo:

Thank you.

The plane will fly.

Anyone else who disagrees.. answer these simple questions...
The conveyor will move at the same forward speed as the plane countering all movement right?

And the conveyor is designed to travel exactly at the same speed the plane is moving forward thrust making the plane stand still right? Therefore making no lift.

How fast is the plane moving forward? The answer has to be zero mph because its stuck on a conveyor.

Therefore.. if the conveyor is designed to move at exactly the opposite speed in reverse of what the plane is moving forward… and the plane is not moving forward.. then how fast is the conveyor going?

Your own logic says it cant move either. If the plane is standing still.. so is the conveyor. Now explain to me how a plane with its engine(s) running flat out, no brakes and on a totally still conveyor, not tied down and in perfect working order is just sitting there going nowhere please? Explain that to me and I’ll concede.

FTGAutosalvage · 01-12-2005, 05:12 PM

16 pages

:

who would have thought such a simple question could cause so much conflict

4.9 EF Futura · 01-12-2005, 05:26 PM

Casper, depsite your logical argument I do not believe that you have proven the plane will fly.

You concede that the plane is travelling 0mph - correct?

You need to go another step further. You need to explain how a plane which zero veloicy is able to generate lift. Surely it cannot.

As far as im concerned, you have done an excellent job in interpreting the question. But all you've really done is boiled the question down to the crux of it - you haven provided the answer. ie.

Quote:

If the plane is standing still.. so is the conveyor. Now explain to me how a plane with its engine(s) running flat out, no brakes and on a totally still conveyor, not tied down and in perfect working order is just sitting there going nowhere please?

That's the riddle! Explain to me how a fixed wing device is going to be able to generate lift with no forward movement??

Dont you see?? There is no answer to the question!!!!!!

Casper · 01-12-2005, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Casper, depsite your logical argument I do not believe that you have proven the plane will fly.

You concede that the plane is travelling 0mph - correct?

You need to go another step further. You need to explain how a plane which zero veloicy is able to generate lift. Surely it cannot.

As far as im concerned, you have done an excellent job in interpreting the question. But all you've really done is boiled the question down to the crux of it - you haven provided the answer. ie.

That's the riddle! Explain to me how a fixed wing device is going to be able to generate lift with no forward movement??

Dont you see?? There is no answer to the question!!!!!!

No, the question now is how can a plane a maximum throttle and nothing holding it NOT move forward on a stationary conveyor. There is an answer.. and the answer is it WILL move forward and create lift.

Angle it any way you like, the fact remains that the conveyor cannot hold a plane still without remaining still itself.. thus becoming redundant.
I dont need to explain how the plane will create lift without forward movement, you have to explain why it wont move forward.

FTGAutosalvage · 01-12-2005, 05:33 PM

i agree

of course the plain will move forward wheel speed has no bearing on the planes speed only thrust will have a bearing on speed.

neb · 01-12-2005, 05:33 PM

anyone that thinks that the plane WON'T fly please go back to school... at least this thread shows us the intellectually challenged people on here.. :P

4.9 EF Futura · 01-12-2005, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

No, the question now is how can a plane a maximum throttle and nothing holding it NOT move forward on a stationary conveyor. There is an answer.. and the answer is it WILL move forward and create lift.

Angle it any way you like, the fact remains that the conveyor cannot hold a plane still without remaining still itself.. thus becoming redundant.
I dont need to explain how the plane will create lift without forward movement, you have to explain why it wont move forward.

I disagree. Well - actually, i agree. Actually - i dont agree either way. It's a circular argument.

I call shenadigans on the entire concept. I dont think either argument is sufficiently coherent.

neb - thanks for the offer mate but 12 years of school and 4 years of uni more than enough for me!!! lol

FordFan86 · 01-12-2005, 05:54 PM

How much wood could a woodchuck....

PetesV8 · 01-12-2005, 05:58 PM

This has been a very amusing thread!!!! With what appear to be logical arguments on both sides.
As many have pointed out, this question is purely theoretical, as in practice you could not replicate the conditions as stated in the question.

Perhaps the following scenarios will enlighten

a) car on the 1/4 , 100 kph trap speed. (ss commodore LOL)

Q1. What would happen if at the end of the 1/4 this theoretical conveyor system was turning in the opposite direction @ 150kph? ie car @ 150 meets conveyor @ 150?
Q2. Same scenario above but car @ 300 and conveyor @ 150?
Q3. Same scenario but car @ 150 and conveyor @ 300

Before people start jumping up and down about how a car drives through its wheels, replace car with rocket powered drag car!

Thunder · 01-12-2005, 07:20 PM

Wow......Very interesting (in a strong Count Drakula acsent)
Ah Ah Ahhhhhhh!

FordFan86 · 01-12-2005, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunder

Wow......Very interesting (in a strong Count Drakula acsent)
Ah Ah Ahhhhhhh!

Classic. I love him.

Thunder · 01-12-2005, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FordFan86

Classic. I love him.

Me or the Count?

:

FordFan86 · 01-12-2005, 07:43 PM

Well, it's dark and rainy outside ride now and I love it. Take your pick. :P

megsy · 01-12-2005, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PetesV8

This has been a very amusing thread!!!! With what appear to be logical arguments on both sides.
As many have pointed out, this question is purely theoretical, as in practice you could not replicate the conditions as stated in the question.

Perhaps the following scenarios will enlighten

a) car on the 1/4 , 100 kph trap speed. (ss commodore LOL)

Q1. What would happen if at the end of the 1/4 this theoretical conveyor system was turning in the opposite direction @ 150kph? ie car @ 150 meets conveyor @ 150?
Q2. Same scenario above but car @ 300 and conveyor @ 150?
Q3. Same scenario but car @ 150 and conveyor @ 300

Before people start jumping up and down about how a car drives through its wheels, replace car with rocket powered drag car!

OK as has been mentioned 100 times already, the plane uses air to force it forward not the ground so the car idea is already flawed, read back a few pages especially the rocket on skateboard idea..... i'l even light the fuse for you!!!!

EDIT: about the jet powered car.... it will fly off the end and as soon as the wheel hit the ground will cause a big black mark on whatever it's sitting on :hihi:

(now to set the reminder on my phone to reopen the thread on 2 months time);)

Thunder · 01-12-2005, 07:56 PM

Ahh...Ahh....Ahhhhhhrhhrrrrr.

01-12-2005, 09:03 PM

42.57lb, just on the subject of bearing friction that you seem to be adamant about. We have all agreed that the moment the plane reaches enough speed to lift off the run way, the wheels of the plane would be spinning at twice the forward speed of the plane. Therefore they are spinning at twice the speed they usually would be taking off on a normal solid runway.

Therefore because they are spinning twice as fast, would the amount of energy lost in 'friction' (by means of heat and noise), be twice as much as a normal takeoff, as the only difference is that the wheels are spinning twice as fast?

In that case, do you honestly beleive that because there is twice as much friction from the wheels, the plane will not take off, effectivley saying that HALF of all the energy produced by the plane's engines is used to overcome the friction of 15 or so aircraft wheels?

Theoretically or in reality, the plane takes off. The conveyor simply spins the wheels twice as fast as usual, and has NO bearing on the planes forward movement, apart from the small amount lost by having twice as much wheel friction as a normal takeoff, which is such a small amount it can be considered negligible.

bob^ · 01-12-2005, 09:34 PM

All this talk about friction in the wheels stopping the plane from moving. Then what about friction in the belt that will slow it down also then???

Casper · 01-12-2005, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob^

All this talk about friction in the wheels stopping the plane from moving. Then what about friction in the belt that will slow it down also then???

its irrelevant
fact is that there is only one answer that can be convincingly stated without a logic flaw.. the plane will take off.. conveyor is irrelevant.

42.57lb · 01-12-2005, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomcolahan

42.57lb, just on the subject of bearing friction that you seem to be adamant about. We have all agreed that the moment the plane reaches enough speed to lift off the run way, the wheels of the plane would be spinning at twice the forward speed of the plane. Therefore they are spinning at twice the speed they usually would be taking off on a normal solid runway.

Therefore because they are spinning twice as fast, would the amount of energy lost in 'friction' (by means of heat and noise), be twice as much as a normal takeoff, as the only difference is that the wheels are spinning twice as fast?

In that case, do you honestly beleive that because there is twice as much friction from the wheels, the plane will not take off, effectivley saying that HALF of all the energy produced by the plane's engines is used to overcome the friction of 15 or so aircraft wheels?

Theoretically or in reality, the plane takes off. The conveyor simply spins the wheels twice as fast as usual, and has NO bearing on the planes forward movement, apart from the small amount lost by having twice as much wheel friction as a normal takeoff, which is such a small amount it can be considered negligible.

dude, I've already conceded that I can't explain it. Show me the numbers, go on, get yourself a model plane and a treadmill, then hook up the throttle of the plane to a sensor in the treadmill, tape it, post it on geocities and BAM, I'm completely shot down.

Just before you do that, explain to me how a plane stops when it lands???? Has it going ANYTHING AT ALL to do with friction.

I dare you to say no