That plane/conveyor problem - filmed solution
Discussion
OL, you are resulting to rudeness and personal insults again.
you are also making bits up again. In my skateboard question you actually answered the question in favour of the plane taking off again.
You moaned that I had added gravity acting on the object as opposed to it sitting on a flat and freewheeling. That is the whole point. Instead of adding a slope stick a prop/jet/rocket or even a hand pushing on that skateboard. It moves forward. add wings to that board (crude yes, I know) and it will take off.
Remember the question referred to the speed of the plane, not the angular/rotational/imaginational velocity of a wheel or its pinion.
This would work in real life.
But why bother, it would be expensive and pointless.
Hmm, got to use the SCP money for something.
you are also making bits up again. In my skateboard question you actually answered the question in favour of the plane taking off again.
You moaned that I had added gravity acting on the object as opposed to it sitting on a flat and freewheeling. That is the whole point. Instead of adding a slope stick a prop/jet/rocket or even a hand pushing on that skateboard. It moves forward. add wings to that board (crude yes, I know) and it will take off.
Remember the question referred to the speed of the plane, not the angular/rotational/imaginational velocity of a wheel or its pinion.
This would work in real life.
But why bother, it would be expensive and pointless.
Hmm, got to use the SCP money for something.
orgasmicliving I dont believe you will be satisfied until the actual test is performed and the results proved one way or the other. In which case its not worth continuing with
you say one thing lots of other people say the opposite. Since this experiment will never actually be carried out why not put the argument on the back burner and talk about cars on a car forum (acccepted this in the pub section)
you say one thing lots of other people say the opposite. Since this experiment will never actually be carried out why not put the argument on the back burner and talk about cars on a car forum (acccepted this in the pub section)
KB_S1 said:
OL, you are resulting to rudeness and personal insults again.
you are also making bits up again. In my skateboard question you actually answered the question in favour of the plane taking off again.
You moaned that
characterizing people's posts as "moaning" (when they are nothing of the sort) is not rude and personally insulting? you are also making bits up again. In my skateboard question you actually answered the question in favour of the plane taking off again.
You moaned that
KB_S1 said:
I had added gravity acting on the object as opposed to it sitting on a flat and freewheeling. That is the whole point. Instead of adding a slope stick a prop/jet/rocket or even a hand pushing on that skateboard. It moves forward. add wings to that board (crude yes, I know) and it will take off.
no, the point is that the wheel speeds (tangential, linear) were not being matched at the point when the skateboard moved along the treadmill. condition of the question is therefore broken. we don't care what happens after that. KB_S1 said:
Remember the question referred to the speed of the plane, not the angular/rotational/imaginational velocity of a wheel or its pinion.
This would work in real life.
you cannot match rotational to linear speeds, ever. you can match linear to linear. and since people seem to be concerned about english, the word is imaginary, not imaginational (though i understand perfectionally what you mean) This would work in real life.
KB_S1 said:
But why bother, it would be expensive and pointless.
Like this post, you mean, where you keep ignoring some key points that I keep reminding you of, such as the conditions posed by the question? please note the lack of rudeness and insult in my post. can i ask you to try and make yours in a similar vein?
Edited by orgasmicliving!! on Thursday 14th December 22:10
Cotty said:
orgasmicliving I dont believe you will be satisfied until the actual test is performed and the results proved one way or the other. In which case its not worth continuing with
you say one thing lots of other people say the opposite. Since this experiment will never actually be carried out why not put the argument on the back burner and talk about cars on a car forum (acccepted this in the pub section)
you should click on my profile and follow the links to my posts on the Z4M and Gordon Murray's McLaren F1. both are topics i have posted on in the last hour. you say one thing lots of other people say the opposite. Since this experiment will never actually be carried out why not put the argument on the back burner and talk about cars on a car forum (acccepted this in the pub section)
on second thoughts, don't bother, it's much easier to tap away at a keyboard and infer something about people you don't know.
Edited by orgasmicliving!! on Thursday 14th December 22:04
well Terry 
wit, you've done your evangelising
everyone knows you are wrong, deep down in whatever remnant of a brain stem you have there you possibly even know you are wrong too, so you've given up arguing your point in favour of piss-poor, sub-teenage insults
bye now!
edit: followed your advice and checked out some of your other threads
HAHAHA the town has a funneeee name!!!! HAHAHAH!! OMGLOL!
brilliant
wit, you've done your evangelising everyone knows you are wrong, deep down in whatever remnant of a brain stem you have there you possibly even know you are wrong too, so you've given up arguing your point in favour of piss-poor, sub-teenage insults
bye now!
edit: followed your advice and checked out some of your other threads
HAHAHA the town has a funneeee name!!!! HAHAHAH!! OMGLOL!
brilliant
whaddya mean, my edit is after yours
Edited by hugoagogo on Thursday 14th December 22:12
OL: It's quite clear that you get a kick out of winding people up, particularly if it can be achieved with dissembling or by telling the truth but not the whole truth until the other person has been suckered in and the whole truth can make them look silly.
It's not the first thread either. Witness the one where you said people should chuck near enough everything they own away, and that you had, carefully not mentioning the fact that in actual fact you've digitised everything so only thrown the physical stuff away. Got some real Daily Mail outrage doing on there until you dropped that bombshell.
This thread has so clearly run its course, apart from the fact that you still seem to be able to milk it a bit further in order to push people's buttons a bit more.
Still, I guess we all need a hobby.
It's not the first thread either. Witness the one where you said people should chuck near enough everything they own away, and that you had, carefully not mentioning the fact that in actual fact you've digitised everything so only thrown the physical stuff away. Got some real Daily Mail outrage doing on there until you dropped that bombshell.
This thread has so clearly run its course, apart from the fact that you still seem to be able to milk it a bit further in order to push people's buttons a bit more.
Still, I guess we all need a hobby.
Edited by JonRB on Thursday 14th December 22:14
orgasmicliving!! said:
Cotty said:
orgasmicliving I dont believe you will be satisfied until the actual test is performed and the results proved one way or the other. In which case its not worth continuing with
you say one thing lots of other people say the opposite. Since this experiment will never actually be carried out why not put the argument on the back burner and talk about cars on a car forum (acccepted this in the pub section)
you should click on my profile and follow the links to my posts on the Z4M and Gordon Murray's McLaren F1. both are topics i have posted on in the last hour. you say one thing lots of other people say the opposite. Since this experiment will never actually be carried out why not put the argument on the back burner and talk about cars on a car forum (acccepted this in the pub section)
Sorry I had not checked your profile to see what other threads you have been posting on
orgasmicliving!! said:
[
on second thoughts, don't bother, it's much easier to tap away at a keyboard and infer something about people you don't know.
on second thoughts, don't bother, it's much easier to tap away at a keyboard and infer something about people you don't know.
Well thats the problem isnt it, perhaps if we met and talked about car things, thngs would be would be ok.
Edited by Cotty on Thursday 14th December 22:20
hugoagogo said:
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?
Both those scenarios are possible, depending on how perversely you interpret the problem
JonRB said:
OL: It's quite clear that you get a kick out of winding people up, particularly if it can be achieved with dissembling or by telling the truth but not the whole truth until the other person has been suckered in and the whole truth can make them look silly.
no that's not true at all, but i doubt you will believe me. is it possible to refute your claims without appearing argumentative? if so, that's what i am trying to do here, as i do think you are a fairly intelligent bloke. jonrb said:
It's not the first thread either. Witness the one where you said people should chuck near enough everything they own away, and that you had, carefully not mentioning the fact that in actual fact you've digitised everything so only thrown the physical stuff away. Got some real Daily Mail outrage doing on there until you dropped that bombshell.
i believe it was only you who took offence, adn then you apologised. to clear up any misunderstanding, i do try to not accumulate clutter, which means i am constantly thinking if i can get rid of something (but retain the functionality somehow). i meant to send you a pm saying your apology was not necessary, as i took it as good natured debate adn i was sure you had misunderstood my point...i like the utility that "things" give, but i hate having a zillion things to look after, so i am always looking for an efficient solution that resolves these two "needs", either by putting them in the virtual domain or by combining functionality, or by eliminating the need for the utlity. i also hate the whole "consume or die" ethos i am surrounded by, and i feel that by not contributing to demand and by recycling what i have, i do my bit for the landfill issue. jonrb said:
This thread has so clearly run its course, apart from the fact that you still seem to be able to milk it a bit further in order to push people's buttons a bit more.
again, i don't think so. i don't run around screaming people are winding me up or pushing my buttons every time they disagree and/or insult me. i can take it. clearly, if there's 14-odd people (you included, sometimes) doing that, and only me responding, then the ratio of insults hurled quickly seems to be 14:1, but it's really 1 on 1. i always respond to civil posts in a civil manner, though i am sure some of my attempts at humour don't come across as funny. jonrb said:
Still, I guess we all need a hobby.
i will ignore the condescending tone and leave you to ponder your own hypocrisy. Edited by orgasmicliving!! on Thursday 14th December 22:50
orgasmicliving!! said:
no, the point is that the wheel speeds (tangential, linear) were not being matched at the point when the skateboard moved along the treadmill. condition of the question is therefore broken. we don't care what happens after that.
KB_S1 said:
Remember the question referred to the speed of the plane, not the angular/rotational/imaginational velocity of a wheel or its pinion.
This would work in real life.
you cannot match rotational to linear speeds, ever. you can match linear to linear. and since people seem to be concerned about englishThis would work in real life.
ermmm... but for 40 odd pages you were being insulting and questioning the intelligence of anyone that questioned your theory, which revolved 100% around comparing the linear and rotational speeds of the wheels. You tried to rebuke all my comments, which have always soley been to point out that your version of the question is invalid because it can never exist, and now suddenly you start posting exactly that infering that it's of no importance?!
I think I can finally see why the factual arguements being put forward are getting nowhere!!!
Davi said:
Davi said:
But ONLY IF YOU APPLY THE FORCE DIRECTLY TO THE WHEEL.
To take your analogy - fix the axle of the lower wheel to the floor via a frame.
Now fix the axle of the upper wheel to the floor via another frame.
Now push on the axle using a linear force - how far do either wheel rotate? they dont, they dont rotate at all because without movement of the upper axle relative to the floor, absolutely NOTHING would happen. Push on the surface of the wheel, yeah it'll turn, apply a rotational force directly to the axle, yeah it'll turn!!!
APPLY A LINEAR FORCE TO THE AXLE AND NOTHING WILL HAPPEN!!!
Now....... lets remove the upper wheel's frame... lets make it free to move. Push on the axle with a linear force... what happens? they both move! whey hey!!!
Only one problem for your versions though OL.....
They wont rotate at the same speed.
Sorry OL, you seem to have forgotten to comment on this post, the one that using your own example covers the fact that nothing ever happens in your scenario, unless one of the conditions are broken.
orgasmicliving!! said:
No need to comment. As you say, nothing happens until the condition is broken. We don't care once the conditions are broken. And if they are not, then you are saying the plane won't take off. Which is what I am saying.
see I should really have noticed it here. You clearly now accept your principles and theories, that you've been insulting people for questioning, are complete poppycock. You've just changed tactics, deciding that that was the whole point and that the plane couldn't take off precisely because the question you created is a nonsense one.
sooooo if I could have a go....
If a cabbage falls vertically upwards against gravity for no apparent reason and then crashes through the windscreen of a boeing in an underground car park in Leeds, will the plane take off.
(the answer is yes by the way, purely based on the fact that I say so)
Thankfully I am pretty much impossible to wind up.
I am also in no way a rude person. Therefore if my use of the word 'moaning' upset OL, I am sorry.
I must point out however that I made the conditions of my skateboard question very clear. If necessary read them again.
I have written, and do write a substantial amount of academic material. However English (the finer art of) is not my strongest area. I do quite often use made up words in informal settings, such as this.
OL quite correctly points out that rotational and linear velocity are very different.
One must remember that the purpose of a treadmill is not to act as a device to provide rotational velocity or a representation of. It is designed to mimic linear movement.
Would a runner ever use a freewheel to provide indoor training? If you want to use a device to match rotational or tangential velocity I think a device that is designed to mimic linear movement is the wrong place to start.
Guess that is why car tuners use a rolling road that is essentialy rollers acting in opposite action to the driving force on the vehicle, Its wheels.
I am also in no way a rude person. Therefore if my use of the word 'moaning' upset OL, I am sorry.
I must point out however that I made the conditions of my skateboard question very clear. If necessary read them again.
I have written, and do write a substantial amount of academic material. However English (the finer art of) is not my strongest area. I do quite often use made up words in informal settings, such as this.
OL quite correctly points out that rotational and linear velocity are very different.
One must remember that the purpose of a treadmill is not to act as a device to provide rotational velocity or a representation of. It is designed to mimic linear movement.
Would a runner ever use a freewheel to provide indoor training? If you want to use a device to match rotational or tangential velocity I think a device that is designed to mimic linear movement is the wrong place to start.
Guess that is why car tuners use a rolling road that is essentialy rollers acting in opposite action to the driving force on the vehicle, Its wheels.
Cotty said:
orgasmicliving!! how about we both be grown up about this and agree that you opinion is different to mine. We accept that and move on and dont disscus this any further
we can agree to disagree, fine. but why would you want to prevent me from discussing it? you don't want to discuss it with me, fine. i didn't exactly pm you to come and weigh in on the thread. note that i am not asking you to leave. you are free to come and go. if you post something i want to respond to, i will. if not, i won't. take it easy.
kb_s1, respectfully, i disagree. rollers and conveyors both do the same thing. rollers can work with a point of contact only. conveyors can accommodate several points of contact, ie. they provide a longer contact patch where rotating objects can have their (tangential, circumferential) speeds matched. it's just a matter of what the situation calls for.
Davi said:
ermmm... but for 40 odd pages you were being insulting
I have already responded to this accusation a couple of times. From now, for the sake of the more sensitive, hypocritical souls, I won't respond in kind. I will be respectful even when they are not. I hope this is satisfactory to you. Davi said:
Sorry OL, you seem to have forgotten to comment on this post, the one that using your own example covers the fact that nothing ever happens in your scenario, unless one of the conditions are broken.
Do I have to respond to every single post? Every single question? Every single half-baked analogy? If you think I am wrong, I can live with that. Fact is I skim a lot of the pages. I skimmed over this question too, I guess. Do I have to think about it and answer it? I don't agree with it, but I don't feel like going for another few pages, discussing all sorts of nuances. Davi said:
you've been insulting people for questioning
No I have been insulting people when they insulted me. You just didn't keep track of that first initiation of the insulting tone, and I could well have misinterpreted a few posts too. But I don't go out and insult people at random. You are wrong about that (though I doubt you would agree). Davi said:
You've just changed tactics, deciding that that was the whole point and that the plane couldn't take off precisely because the question you created is a nonsense one.
Another thing I don't like is people appointing themselves as my spokesperson. I am quite happy to speak on my own behalf. You may not realize you are doing this, but you are. Please don't. Davi said:
sooooo if I could have a go....
If a cabbage falls vertically upwards against gravity for no apparent reason and then crashes through the windscreen of a boeing in an underground car park in Leeds, will the plane take off.
(the answer is yes by the way, purely based on the fact that I say so)
Edited by orgasmicliving!! on Thursday 14th December 22:43
orgasmicliving!! said:
Cotty said:
orgasmicliving!! how about we both be grown up about this and agree that you opinion is different to mine. We accept that and move on and dont disscus this any further
we can agree to disagree, fine. but why would you want to prevent me from discussing it? Im not preventing you from dicussing this subject but its a stale mate with me and you and the rest of the oposing views. how about puting this on the back burner without wasting more time on this subject. Im worried this is becoming an obsession for some people.
I know you and I are free to come and go but do you really want to be aguing your point until the experiment is actually carried out. which could be never.
Its not healthy
orgasmicliving!! said:
Davi said:
you've been insulting people for questioning
No I have been insulting people when they insulted me. You just didn't keep track of that first initiation of the insulting tone, and I could well have misinterpreted a few posts too. But I don't go out and insult people at random. You are wrong about that (though I doubt you would agree). I'd agree you may have misinterpreted some posts, I can guarantee that until you started insulting me nothing I posted prior had been meant as such, maybe some ribbing at what I felt were inconsistancies but nothing more. Believe it or not up until that point I respected the fact you were prepared to fight your corner against overwhelming odds.
orgasmicliving said:
Davi said:
You've just changed tactics, deciding that that was the whole point and that the plane couldn't take off precisely because the question you created is a nonsense one.
Another thing I don't like is people appointing themselves as my spokesperson. I am quite happy to speak on my own behalf. You may not realize you are doing this, but you are. Please don't. orgasmicliving said:
Davi said:
sooooo if I could have a go....
If a cabbage falls vertically upwards against gravity for no apparent reason and then crashes through the windscreen of a boeing in an underground car park in Leeds, will the plane take off.
(the answer is yes by the way, purely based on the fact that I say so)
I've been practicing, I'll get this humour thing licked eventually
Edited because I fecked up the formatting
Edited by Davi on Thursday 14th December 22:59
well i have felt that when i give the ribbing back, people get riled up. not talking about you personally, as i also felt that you were more than respectful, but i think you misinterpreted my tone and decided i was insulting you and then it did get reduced to a slugfest. this is pretty much what i wrote in a pm to someone else just now too.
over 50 pages and straddling several days, with a dozen-odd people firing away, you would have to agree that unless i was using a db to track everyone's points, it would be easy to lose track of some trains of thought.
quite frankly, i got bored of it (but remain convinced of my viewpoint) a good 40 pages ago. i can't bring myself to think about this crap anymore. if you say i am contradicting myself, fine. i don't think so, but i could well have (inadvertently).
now all i want to do is make quips in response at anyone who still wants to take this seriously.
but i will try to answer your question.
first, though, i need some clarification:
is the lettuce shredded?
over 50 pages and straddling several days, with a dozen-odd people firing away, you would have to agree that unless i was using a db to track everyone's points, it would be easy to lose track of some trains of thought.
quite frankly, i got bored of it (but remain convinced of my viewpoint) a good 40 pages ago. i can't bring myself to think about this crap anymore. if you say i am contradicting myself, fine. i don't think so, but i could well have (inadvertently).
now all i want to do is make quips in response at anyone who still wants to take this seriously.
but i will try to answer your question.
first, though, i need some clarification:
is the lettuce shredded?
Edited by orgasmicliving!! on Thursday 14th December 23:06
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff