Plane on a Treadmill

[wolverine68]

Your wrong in this argument simply because of the example I provided earlier with the die cast car and the sheet of paper. If you put a die cast car on top of a sheet of paper and pull the sheet of paper out from underneath the car, the car will not significantly move (it may move an inch or so, but it will not move the 3-5 feet that your arm moved). In this scenario, the sheet of paper can't overcome Newton's momentum law which states that all objects in motion tend to stay in motion (and all objects at rest tend to stay at rest). The exact same thing would happen to a plane on a treadmill. How is the treadmill supposed to counteract the thrust applied to the plane when it can't even counteract Newton's law stating that objects at rest tend to stay at rest?

Wait! I forgot!!! Your argument actually helps prove mine! All objects at rest tend to stay at rest. A plane on a teadmill is not in motion. Sure, the propeller is in motion, but the plane is not. Yes, the treadmill is in motion, but the plane is not. Okay, the wheels are in motion, but the plane is not. The plane is not in motion until it overcomes gravity and friction. Where in your argument is the plane overcoming these?

 

[CYVADER]

Wait! I forgot!!! Your argument actually helps prove mine! All objects at rest tend to stay at rest. A plane on a teadmill is not in motion. Sure, the propeller is in motion, but the plane is not. Yes, the treadmill is in motion, but the plane is not. Okay, the wheels are in motion, but the plane is not. The plane is not in motion until it overcomes gravity and friction. Where in your argument is the plane overcoming these?

i'm with you 100% but don't have near the stamina to fight for it like you do. keep your head up-i think you are correct here, and i am basing this on no quantum physics or anything like that, just good old fashioned common sense.

 

[cmoneyr]

Obviously the plane will move backwads, just like the car. Even with free spinning wheels, the plane will move backwards.

In realistic conditions yes, it will move backwards. But that is only because of the friction of the wheels. With no other forces in play the friction of the wheels is greatest and causes the plane to move backwards. Do you think that a planes engines can over come this friction?

 

[wolverine68]

In realistic conditions yes, it will move backwards. But that is only because of the friction of the wheels. With no other forces in play the friction of the wheels is greatest and causes the plane to move backwards. Do you think that a planes engines can over come this friction?

No. Not as long as the treadmill has the ability to match the thrust created by the engines.

 

[cmoneyr]

i'm with you 100% but don't have near the stamina to fight for it like you do. keep your head up-i think you are correct here, and i am basing this on no quantum physics or anything like that, just good old fashioned common sense.

That's the way, don't let facts get in the way of good old fashioned common sense.

Wait! I forgot!!! Your argument actually helps prove mine! All objects at rest tend to stay at rest. A plane on a teadmill is not in motion. Sure, the propeller is in motion, but the plane is not. Yes, the treadmill is in motion, but the plane is not. Okay, the wheels are in motion, but the plane is not. The plane is not in motion until it overcomes gravity and friction. Where in your argument is the plane overcoming these?

Seriously? The force of thrust produced by the engines stops the plane from being at rest. The theory states that objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless it's affected by an outside force.

 

[wolverine68]

Can I just say that I love this debate? I am not trying to put anyone else down, I just love having these kinds of discussions. Whether I am right or wrong, I think this sort of thing helps us all to be more creative in the way that we think. I guess that I am just saying that this is fun!

 

[cmoneyr]

No. Not as long as the treadmill has the ability to match the thrust created by the engines.

But when the treadmill reacts to the increased thrust all that happens is the WHEELS spin faster, the plane itself is not affected.

 

[wolverine68]

That's the way, don't let facts get in the way of good old fashioned common sense.


Seriously? The force of thrust produced by the engines stops the plane from being at rest. The theory states that objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless it's affected by an outside force.

Exactly! The treadmill is the outside force!!!

 

[cmoneyr]

I'm seriously baffled that this is that hard to explain, I think if we were face to face I could do a better job of making you see this.

Can we agree that if a plane is moving 50mph in one direction and the treadmill is moving at 50mph the opposite direction that the wheels of the plane are rotating at 100mph?

 

[superdorf]

The treadmill isn't acting on the plane... it is acting on the wheels of the plane... The only force on the plane is the tiny amount of friction from the rubber and bearings.

 

[superdorf]

I think this should be your signature cmoney...

Can we agree that if a plane is moving 50mph in one direction and the treadmill is moving at 50mph the opposite direction that the wheels of the plane are rotating at 100mph?

 

[wolverine68]

But when the treadmill reacts to the increased thrust all that happens is the WHEELS spin faster, the plane itself is not affected.

The wheels spin faster because of the treadmill and the thrust. The plane is affected by both of these factors.

How do you define thrust? Is it energy? Are there other forms of energy? Why is one more important than another?

 

[CYVADER]

i can't wait for this episode to air. either way, a large amount of people on this site are going to have to open their mouths and shove their foot in it.

 

[cmoneyr]

Exactly! The treadmill is the outside force!!!

I'm confused what you're trying to say? That when the treadmill starts the plane will move backwards? I agree with that, assuming no thrust. But first, if the plane is not moving neither is the treadmill, according to the myth. Now, the only thing in that scenario that has to happen in order for the plane to not move backwards is for its thrust to overcome the amount of friction in the wheels. Would you say that the engine of a plane is capable of overcoming the friction of its wheels?

 

[cmoneyr]

The wheels spin faster because of the treadmill and the thrust. The plane is affected by both of these factors.

How do you define thrust? Is it energy? Are there other forms of energy? Why is one more important than another?

One form isn't more important than another, but one can certainly have more magnitude than another. Friction is a comparitively low magnitude as opposed to that of the engines, same with gravity. Because if either of these were more than the force of the engine then the plane would never take off, in any conditions.

 

[wolverine68]

But when the treadmill reacts to the increased thrust all that happens is the WHEELS spin faster, the plane itself is not affected.

Go back to what others argue. The wheels spin because there are two opposing forces. The plane is not affected by this. As long as the plane can not move forward, it will not take off.

 

[chadm]

i can't wait for this episode to air. either way, a large amount of people on this site are going to have to open their mouths and shove their foot in it.

The fact is there will be outs for the losing side of this arguement.(This and that wasn't stated as a factor)

 

[CYVADER]

explain how the only thing that has to happen is to overcome the friction of the wheels. i am picturing the treadmill as a non motorized hypothetical belt that is somewhat using the planes thrust as its motor to turn the belt around. the faster the planes engines would thrust, the faster the belt would spin, thus negating any forward movement from the plane. but again, this is common sense speaking.

 

[CYVADER]

The fact is there will be outs for the losing side of this arguement.(This and that wasn't stated as a factor)

the fact is that whoever is wrong will be extremely weak sauce not to at least own up to the fact that they are proven wrong. i can't stand weak sauce.

 

[wolverine68]

I'm confused what you're trying to say? That when the treadmill starts the plane will move backwards? I agree with that, assuming no thrust. But first, if the plane is not moving neither is the treadmill, according to the myth. Now, the only thing in that scenario that has to happen in order for the plane to not move backwards is for its thrust to overcome the amount of friction in the wheels. Would you say that the engine of a plane is capable of overcoming the friction of its wheels?

Obviously a plane is capable of overcoming the friction of its wheels. But a plane is not on a treadmill. Now, if the treadmill is the equivalent of the wheels on a plane (in other words, it won't move unless the plane forces it too) then, yes, the plane would probably be able to take off (the same way that it is possible for a plane to take off with a tail wind). However, if the treadmill had its own power source, if it did not rely upon the plane to gain speed, the forces involved would equal each other out and the plane would not move (relative to the ground below it). If in fact the treadmill could run faster than the plane, then the plan would crash off of the back of the treadmill because (just like the matchbox car) it could not achieve lift..