Mythbusters did something similar: A plane on a conveyor belt moving in the opposing direction of travel whilst the plane is stationary. The plane took off as the wheel bearings allow the plane to remain separated from the effects of the conveyor.
Vehicle moving at a certain speed, onto a conveyor moving at same speed....
- Thread starter snedie
- Start date
Mythbusters did something similar: A plane on a conveyor belt moving in the opposing direction of travel whilst the plane is stationary. The plane took off as the wheel bearings allow the plane to remain separated from the effects of the conveyor.
Bit more complex as that's a dimensional problem. I think it's still the same principle, however the wave also causes the boat to rise and fall and there is a direct transfer of energy into the ship. Sure someone else will have a better explanation than that
It's a very different principle as the water will be displaced around the boat. The friction force applied by the water travelling past the boat will be far lower than rubber against a solid surface. Too many fluid flow and aerodynamic variables involved to give a fixed answer though.
Sensible answers are not allowed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,344
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
I'll have to watch that episode. Its the wings and airflow then pressure which raises a plane,
I think the main difference is that the thrust isn't supplied by the wheels, therefore they just freewheel and the relative speed remains the same.
A bear farting in the woods is macroscopic, in other words, contingent above the atomic level. Quantum mechanics deals with phenomena below the atomic level, for instance, your Schrodinger's cat example. Macroscopic events can not be simultaneously in two states of reality.
I do love Schrodinger's cat though. It bends my mind.
Small cat.
A bear farting in the woods is macroscopic, in other words, contingent above the atomic level. Quantum mechanics deals with phenomena below the atomic level, for instance, your Schrodinger's cat example. Macroscopic events can not be simultaneously in two states of reality.
I do love Schrodinger's cat though. It bends my mind.
Oh if you like that sorta thing this is perfect
Oh if you like that sorta thing this is perfect
Yeah I like the double slit experiment too. I just wish I was smart enough to figure out what is going on.
theres a mythbusters episode on this, the plane can take off. The wheels are not connected to the engine, meaning the body of the plane still has the ability to take off. (Very limited explanation here is a video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY&feature=player_detailpage )
this. end.
What is "spatial inertia"? Seems to me like you've just invented that one.
I always thought the myth meant the plane held a stationary position on the conveyer, matching its speed exactly. That video shows the plane moving forward so of course it would take off, as one of the comments reveals small planes can be lifted off the ground by a strong headwind even when not in use.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 6,593
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
Oh if you like that sorta thing this is perfect
That's why it's a myth, not a fact. As stated inumerable times: the force that pushes the plane forwards has nothing to do with the ground, so the conveyor belt has a negligible effect on its forward movement and hence its takeoff.
Except the conveyor is running in the opposite direction at the same speed so the car isn't doing 60mph at all
The car would no more stop dead than KITT instantly accelerates the moment he touches the ramp of his truck and launches into the back of the cab! It would simply continue at 30 mph relative to the ground but the wheels/drivetrain would be driven by the conveyor up to 60 mph (indicated on the speedo). The car would have course experience some deceleration in reaction to this, and whether the vehicle continues to slow or not depends on what the driver does. He could apply a little more power and keep the car at 30 mph relative to the ground (with speedo reading 60) or say, for example, the car was on cruise control set at 30 mph, it would coast down to 0 mph relative to the ground (speedo at 30).
No. How do you instantly stop a car (without putting a solid wall infront of it)? If the wheels were cogs and the conveyor a toothed belt, the wheels would be near-instantly driven to 60 mph as soon as they engaged with the belt and the car would still continue initially at 30 mph relative to the ground but decelerating in reaction to the sudden acceleration of the wheels then as above, the final resulting speed depends on the driver.
It would simply continue at 30 mph relative to the ground but the wheels/drivetrain would be driven by the conveyor up to 60 mph (indicated on the speedo). The car would have course experience some deceleration in reaction to this, and whether the vehicle continues to slow or not depends on what the driver does. He could apply a little more power and keep the car at 30 mph relative to the ground (with speedo reading 60) or say, for example, the car was on cruise control set at 30 mph, it would coast down to 0 mph relative to the ground (speedo at 30).No. How do you instantly stop a car (without putting a solid wall infront of it)? If the wheels were cogs and the conveyor a toothed belt, the wheels would be near-instantly driven to 60 mph as soon as they engaged with the belt and the car would still continue initially at 30 mph relative to the ground but decelerating in reaction to the sudden acceleration of the wheels then as above, the final resulting speed depends on the driver.
The wheels are doing a relative speed of 60mph, and it's a sudden jump from 30mph to 60mph (again, relative speed that the wheels are experiencing) when it hits the conveyor.
I don't believe it would do any damage due to gears etc though as the tyres would slip instantly before any damage was done.
