Plane on a Treadmill
- Thread starter Warder60
- Start date
- Status
Yes, there were. I'm not going to go back and dig them up in the 4 trillion posts. Arguments like the thrust of the engines is what creates the lift, etc.
Re: CyBookie - Plane on a Treadmill
You made me look. Found one on the first page. I'm sure there is more. Many were arguing things that disagree with the laws of physics as well, from both camps. You can find those all over the place.
I still say the vagueness of the question can point to both answers. The more I think about it, the more confusing it gets to me.
I originally interpreted that the plane would be stationary in reference of a fixed point not on the moving treadmill, due to the frictional force the treadmill applied to the wheels. Again, that is how I interpreted the question.
You made me look. Found one on the first page. I'm sure there is more. Many were arguing things that disagree with the laws of physics as well, from both camps. You can find those all over the place.
I still say the vagueness of the question can point to both answers. The more I think about it, the more confusing it gets to me.
I originally interpreted that the plane would be stationary in reference of a fixed point not on the moving treadmill, due to the frictional force the treadmill applied to the wheels. Again, that is how I interpreted the question.
Last edited:
Re: CyBookie - Plane on a Treadmill
It's ok, you can just come out and say you were wrong :wink:
Re: CyBookie - Plane on a Treadmill
The question isn't really that vague though, I think you may be reading to much into it.
Re: CyBookie - Plane on a Treadmill
If I misinterpreted the question, yes. :wideeyed:
Although I am not convinced I did.
I think it is meant to be vague, or even worse a trick question that leads you to the incorrect answer.
If I misinterpreted the question, yes. :wideeyed:
Although I am not convinced I did.
I think it is meant to be vague, or even worse a trick question that leads you to the incorrect answer.
I just thought of something else. What if the treadmill belt is moving so fast, it creates enough wind to induce lift on the wings?
I know for a fact that belts moving at high speeds generate a pretty good amount of wind.
I know for a fact that belts moving at high speeds generate a pretty good amount of wind.
Very true. I believe it was Superfan in an earlier post (I'm not going to go back and find the exact one) who mentioned that aspect would depend on how high the boundary layer of air above the treadmill extended. If it's high enough to induce an airflow over the wings you would have an airspeed, although probably not anything near takeoff velocity.
Wait a sec, you still think you're the only one interpreting this thing correctly?
This would be example A of reading to much into it, and the belt would have to be travelling ridiculously fast to produce that much of an air disturbance as to produce enough lift for a plane. Much faster than the takeoff speed of any normal plane.
You're somewhat right about this being a trick question though. The trick part of it is the treadmill, it's only thrown in to confuse people, in reality it doesn't really mean anything.
From what I see, I am going to be indecisive and say there is too much vagueness in the question.
As far as wind speeds, it would probably need less speed than the ludicrously fast speed it would take a treadmill to hold a plane stationary by the forces of friction.
So it'll take less speed than the crazy fast speed it takes to hold a plane still, which doesn't have any bearing on the question at hand? Glad we cleared that up.
I'm confused as to what is still vague about this question? The speed of the treadmill? The kind of plane? Whether or not the pilot is a Pisces?
First off, I always took this as a theoretical question, because there is no way this could be reliably tested. It all revolves around the laws of physics anyway. It doesn't matter which plane, etc. Friction (my new catch word) has to be involved in a theoretical discussion, because it is essential for the treadmill device to work. Anyway....
I know it says speed of the plane, but what speed? I don't mean "wheel speed." Does it mean the speed of the normal takeoff speed, or the speed of the plane as observed on/by the treadmill? Or how about the top speed of the plane? It doesn't say and can be interpreted in all kinds of ways. I know you don't think so, but it sure can, simply because its not specific. Even the concise language in the Constitution is debated on its actual meanings, and people infer totally opposite positions on parts of it as well.
If it were specific, it would not be the great debate it is.
Last edited:
Just because people do infer doesn't mean they are right to infer. The problem is quite clear.
It's not a great debate because it's vague, it's a great debate because it introduces extraneous facts that cause people to overthink the situation.
...of the plane. It says it MATCHES the speed of the plane. That can only be interpreted one way. The plane is going at a speed, and the treadmill matches that speed. It's somewhat confusing for some because they think the treadmill will affect the speed of the plane differently that solid ground. But if an engine is moving at 30mph on solid ground it is moving 30mph on a treadmill, that is very confusing for some, and that is why it's such a great problem.
It's not a great debate because it's vague, it's a great debate because it introduces extraneous facts that cause people to overthink the situation.
Holy cow, how many credits have you guys gotten from debating this issue? What's the record for number of views of a thread or replies to a thread? Kudos!
- Status
