That plane/conveyor problem - filmed solution
Discussion
But I don't leave extra stains? 
mini_ralf said:
mackie1 said:
Are orgasmicliving and mini_ralf even arguing the same point? I've lost track!
I think we still are but I haven't been paying close attention to the thread over the last 24 hours. Last time I really looked Orgasmicliving and I were both of the opinion that the plane couldn't take off given the question orginally raised.
Now that would explain a lot of things, certainly your confusion in some area's, as OL is always discussing HIS version of the question, which is a very different kettle of fish to the question originally raised. OL decided half way through the last thread that he didn't like the original one as his arguments failed there, so he made his version up instead.
Shame his arguements fail on that one as well, also a shame we'll never be able to prove it to you mini_ralf as factual evidence doesn't seem to influence you. If it helps, even OL admitted only a few pages back that nothing could happen without conditions of his version being broken, yet for some reason he's gone back to argueing for it
he seems to think that it's fine to break the conditions if it means he's right, not if he's wrong. orgasmicliving!! said:
hugoagogo said:
orgasmicliving!! said:
you are such a tit...how can you not know the difference between cause and effect? effect of slamming the brakes on with engines on full thrust would be for the plane to skid forward. it does not mean, as you claim i am saying, that the brakes cause the plane to move forward. they act as a retarding force that is being overcome. just like you can move a car forward with the handbrake engaged. maybe you are not old enough to drive yet?
and skidding forward is not exactly what the question is alluding to.
btw, make sure you give all your fellow assbiscuits a high-five over this "victory", ok huggies?
and skidding forward is not exactly what the question is alluding to.
btw, make sure you give all your fellow assbiscuits a high-five over this "victory", ok huggies?
Edited by orgasmatron!!!1111one!!eleven!!!! on Wednesday 13th December 22:34
when in doubt, try desperately to rescue yourself with semantics
how do you walk without falling down? seriously? are you really such a fcuktard that you don't get this? i am talking about using the brakes when the engines are applying full thrust. presumably it will allow the plane to move forward over the conveyor, despite losing some parts. after all, the question is talking about a plane, with its engines working. right? right? i am sorry i didn't spell out every single excruciating detail and basic assumption, such as this is presumably happening on earth, in no wind, in normal gravity, with all involved humans breathing, greased bearings, normal coefficients of friction (pun intended), etc., etc. just because i left these, and a million other details, out...<shakes head in disbelief at huggies' stupidity/myopia>
come on huggies_diapers, you can do it. ask your fellow assbiscuits to help you out. i know you can't possibly be this thick. seriously, you can't. punch yourself in the mouth a couple of times and let me know if it hurts, as i desperately want to believe that you are somewhat normal.
let me know if it hurt, ok? if it didn't, keep at it.
hugoagogo said:
but you ARE saying, to make sure we're all up to speed here, that the plane cannot move, unless it applies the brakes, then the EFFECT is to move the plane FORWARD?
yes, that is what i am saying. because once you apply the brakes, the wheels cannot be accelerated angularly. it effectively becomes a ski plane with a lot of friction. so now either the conveyor belt will carry the plane backwards against the thrust, or more likely, the thrust of the plane's engines will push it forwards over the backwards moving conveyor. it might break a few things, but chances are the very powerful engines would move the plane forward while the lower parts touching the conveyor disintegrate.
Edited by orgasmicliving!! on Thursday 14th December 07:56
stepping neatly over the frothing-at-the-mouth impotent rage here, you should take back that copy of 'how to bluff physics knowledge' to your institution's library, it's not helping. may i suggest something from dr. seuss might be more along your lines?
now be a good boy, play nice, and try to stop the pathetic insults you've resorted to since the very first time you posted on the last thread
now if you can do that, we'll carry on
imagine there is a solid wall directly behind the plane, the back of the plane is touching it
the engines are still off
the wheels are still fitted with frictionless bearings
you fire up the belt going as fast as possible
can the belt crush the plane against the wall?
say with a force off 5000lbs?
now put the wall directly in front of the plane, again, the nose touching
the belt is off this time
the plane's engines fire up, full thrust, let's say 5000lbs of thrust for arguments sake
the equivalent of 5000lbs weight sitting on the nose of a vertical plane
that would squash it a bit i reckon
which would do most damage?
what would do the most damage is someone giving you a job with responsibilities, affecting other people. i can see that turning into a disaster very quickly. 
huggies_diapers said:
now be a good boy, play nice, and try to stop the pathetic insults you've resorted to since the very first time you posted on the last thread
now if you can do that, we'll carry on
clearly, i can't. guess you won't carry on, then? now if you can do that, we'll carry on
Edited by orgasmicliving!! on Thursday 14th December 21:48
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff