[sAJ1420]

at least you admit your a redneck...




j/k man

[lemon]

the answer isnt scientific in nature

the answer is more logical

if plane can get on the conveyor, the plane can get off.

plus, who said that both were on at the same time? :wink

[artisan00]

slo2go: fiiiiiine we dont have to shake on it...

lemon.... wtf^^??

[JRuckas]

[sAJ1420]

k let me explain this logically. for those of you who are retarded or hate physics or math, dont read this.

take Bernoulli's equation, hold on im going to draw this its easier to see...



it says that p/rho (pressure over air density) + v/2 (half the velocity of the air) remains constant. we can forget about the gh part because the center of the airstream isnt changing vertically. Now, take the wing of a plane,



the airflow hits the wing, seperates, flows around the wing, and then meets back after the wing. now for the air to meet back at the exact same spot, it will have to travel faster over the top of the wing, because the arc makes that length longer than the bottom. so in the equation, for it to remain constant after the velocity of air (v) has increased, the pressure above the wing has to decrease. this causes a low pressure system above the wing and high pressure under the wing, this higher pressure forces the wing up, bringing the whole plane with it. and that is what all the flaps are for, to change pressure etc.

and that ladies and gents is how a couple hundred tons of steel can fly.

[turp]

Originally Posted by artisan00 slo2go: fiiiiiine we dont have to shake on it... lemon.... wtf^^??

What are we shaking? This? Gotcha!

[artisan00]

Originally Posted by sAJ1420 k let me explain this logically. for those of you who are retarded or hate physics or math, dont read this. take Bernoulli's equation, hold on im going to draw this its easier to see... it says that p/rho (pressure over air density) + v/2 (half the velocity of the air) remains constant. we can forget about the gh part because the center of the airstream isnt changing vertically. Now, take the wing of a plane, the airflow hits the wing, seperates, flows around the wing, and then meets back after the wing. now for the air to meet back at the exact same spot, it will have to travel faster over the top of the wing, because the arc makes that length longer than the bottom. so in the equation, for it to remain constant after the velocity of air (v) has increased, the pressure above the wing has to decrease. this causes a low pressure system above the wing and high pressure under the wing, this higher pressure forces the wing up, bringing the whole plane with it. and that is what all the flaps are for, to change pressure etc. and that ladies and gents is how a couple hundred tons of steel can fly.

thats what we were saying!!

allthoughhhhhh i did read an article or two in SciAm i while back where they are basically discussing how valid the explanation of that principle is (regarding the air moving faster) . the key to their issue was something like this: if the air gets to the wing at time A, and some goes over and some under, then at time B, when the air below has gotten to the end of the wing, there is no nocessarily definitive reason why the air OVER the wings is also at the end. meaning, the air started at the same speed, obvioulsy, so at time B, while the air under is at the end of ther wing, the air over could theoretcally be "not" at the end yet. like saying if you and a friend walk down the street, and then you split at a fork, but both keep the same speed, when the road meets, the kid who took the longer path is not gonna be there yet. the whole classical explanation is assuming that that kid IS in fact there as well, which implies his speed must have increased. but if you dont assume that he is there, well...



the point is not that its wrong, but that the simple 'line of air over and line of air under' doesnt fully explain it, thats all.

but now that i think about it , this doesnt really affect the fact that the formulas still work, its just 'why' they work. so its irrelevant to the thread... id just discard what i just said i typed so much i cant bear to delete it so ill post it anyway.

but when you read it, just forget i said anything

[sAJ1420]

well i see what you are saying, because i thought of that too, but the air isnt actually moving over the wings, the wings are cutting through the air, so points A and B would have to meet back at exactly the same spot, there are also many photos in my engineering book that show shaded regions where there is different pressure and colored wind lines going over the wings. its true.

[turp]

You have to have wind for airflow and there is none since the aircraft is stationary. Now; food for thought. What if there were jet motors IN FRONT of the wings blasting exhaust over the wing area. would it lift off then?

[sAJ1420]

i know u werent serious, but if anyone was thinking about it, no, because again its not the air thats moving around the wings, its the wings that are cutting through the air, creating their own pressure system

[artisan00]

Originally Posted by sAJ1420 i know u werent serious, but if anyone was thinking about it, no, because again its not the air thats moving around the wings, its the wings that are cutting through the air, creating their own pressure system

thats actually false.

there are basic science fair experiments that show this kind of thing. my bro did one way back when, when he built a wing from balsa and whatnot, maybe tissue paper to keep it light - and when a fan blew on it it rose up.

[sAJ1420]

well it can rise yea, but an airplane changes the pressure with its own motion, not strong winds. that wing has no velocity in the x direction, so it couldnt "take off" like a plane, but more or less lift off.

[artisan00]

its all relative. lift is lift - if the wing is going up, there is lift.

[lemon]

ok. the problem: can a plane can get off a conveyor belt matching the speed of such plane?

the solution: yes.


how?

the plane is manufactured.
the plane comes out of the assembly building on its own wheels.
the plane was not originally on the conveyor belt.
the plane had to be moved onto the conveyor belt.

now, the thing is, if the conveyor belt matched the speed of the wheels of the plane when the plane attempts to take off, the conveyor belt had to match the speed of the plane's wheels when the plane was being moved onto the conveyor belt. which would either mean that the problem is impossible, or that the conveyor belt was turned off. which would tell us that the conveyor belt would be turned off to allow the plane to get on the belt. so the logical answer is to turn it off again to allow the plane to take off.

now, modified question: can a plane take off with a live conveyor belt matching the speed of the plane's wheels?

answer: yes.

how?

-the plane is located on the conveyor belt.
-the conveyor belt is live, or in the mode to match the speed of the plane's wheels.
-in order for the conveyor belt to match the speed of the wheels, it has to have a mechanism in which to measure the speed of the plane's wheels.
-this creates a time lapse. it may not be long, but still is present.
-this time lapse creates an availble time slot for the wheel's to spin on the conveyor belt faster than the conveyor belt is moving, thus creating forward motion.
-if acceleration is great and constant enough, the plane will attain a speed fast enough for the bruenllie(fuck spelling, cant the get an easier name?) principal to take effect, and therefore the plane can take off.

=======

heh, what you think about that?

[turp]

Originally Posted by lemon ok. the problem: can a plane can get off a conveyor belt matching the speed of such plane? the solution: yes. how? the plane is manufactured. the plane comes out of the assembly building on its own wheels. the plane was not originally on the conveyor belt. the plane had to be moved onto the conveyor belt. now, the thing is, if the conveyor belt matched the speed of the wheels of the plane when the plane attempts to take off, the conveyor belt had to match the speed of the plane's wheels when the plane was being moved onto the conveyor belt. which would either mean that the problem is impossible, or that the conveyor belt was turned off. which would tell us that the conveyor belt would be turned off to allow the plane to get on the belt. so the logical answer is to turn it off again to allow the plane to take off. now, modified question: can a plane take off with a live conveyor belt matching the speed of the plane's wheels? answer: yes. how? -the plane is located on the conveyor belt. -the conveyor belt is live, or in the mode to match the speed of the plane's wheels. -in order for the conveyor belt to match the speed of the wheels, it has to have a mechanism in which to measure the speed of the plane's wheels. -this creates a time lapse. it may not be long, but still is present. -this time lapse creates an availble time slot for the wheel's to spin on the conveyor belt faster than the conveyor belt is moving, thus creating forward motion. -if acceleration is great and constant enough, the plane will attain a speed fast enough for the bruenllie(fuck spelling, cant the get an easier name?) principal to take effect, and therefore the plane can take off. ======= heh, what you think about that?

It is Bernouli and that is the most confusing gibberish I have ever read! Were you drinking when you typed that?

[sAJ1420]

i hope he was cuz i read it 4 times and still dont get it haha

[DarthStriker]

It will take off straight up

[sAJ1420]

not if its a normal plane, it would have to have vertical thrusters

[lemon]

nope, i wasnt drinking/drugging