MYTHBUSTERS HAS sarcasmo'd US

animepark13 said:
typed up a good response and noticed a single flaw....

so if you put a toy car on a treadmill and simulate a planes forward force by pressing on the car to keep it in position on the treadmill and accelarte the treadmill at a constant rate, will you feel more force on your finger from the car as the speed increases?
Click to expand...

animepark13 said:
so in a hypothetical situation you could make it so the plane does not move forward right? :D i don't care if it has to go a 11ty billion mph
Click to expand...

Just so I understand, you are hypothesizing that the force against your finger will increase as the speed of the treadmill increases, on and on forever, so that in the parallel scenario the force of friction acting on the airplane overcomes the power of the airplane's engines, right? That because the airplane's engines have a maximum thrust, there must be a point when, if the treadmill were spinning at the speed of light, for example, the force of friction generated by such speeds would overtake that maximum thrust thus preventing the airplane from moving forward?
 
Last edited:
Sarcasmo said:
Just so I understand, you are hypothesizing that the force against your finger will increase as the speed of the treadmill increases, on and on forever, so that in the parallel scenario the force of friction acting on the airplane overcomes the power of the airplane's engines, right? That because the airplane's engines have a maximum thrust, there must be a point when, if the treadmill were spinning at the speed of light, for example, the force of friction generated by such speeds would overtake that maximum thrust thus preventing the airplane from moving forward?
Click to expand...

in theory... ofcourse its a bit extreme
 
Sarcasmo said:
Just so I understand, you are hypothesizing that the force against your finger will increase as the speed of the treadmill increases, on and on forever, so that in the parallel scenario the force of friction acting on the airplane overcomes the power of the airplane's engines, right? That because the airplane's engines have a maximum thrust, there must be a point when, if the treadmill were spinning at the speed of light, for example, the force of friction generated by such speeds would overtake that maximum thrust thus preventing the airplane from moving forward?
Click to expand...


If thats the silliness thats being assumed, then well also just throw in that the wheels are spinning on frictionless bearings, thereby nullifying this dumbass argument.
 
animepark13 said:
in theory... ofcourse its a bit extreme
Click to expand...

The friction would never be great enough, even at light speed or other fantastic levels, to overtake the force of the thrust from the planes engines. You would have to replace the wheels and axles, which generate rolling, static friction (keeping the frictional coefficient minimal), with very large and heavy objects which generate sliding, kinetic friction (creating a much, much larger frictional coefficient).

This is assuming, of course, that a conveyor belt moving at light speed wouldn't simply cause instant failure of the tires, followed quickly by the destruction of the rims, axle beam assemblies, oleo pistons, and the rest of the plane's support structure.
 
Sarcasmo said:
The friction would never be great enough, even at light speed or other fantastic levels, to overtake the force of the thrust from the planes engines. You would have to replace the wheels and axles, which generate rolling, static friction (keeping the frictional coefficient minimal), with very large and heavy objects which generate sliding, kinetic friction (creating a much, much larger frictional coefficient).

This is assuming, of course, that a conveyor belt moving at light speed wouldn't simply cause instant failure of the tires, followed quickly by the destruction of the rims, axle beam assemblies, oleo pistons, and the rest of the plane's support structure.
Click to expand...
lotta jargon at the end there, but i have to point out that the static coefficient of friction is always higher than the kinetic coefficient of friction.

it would still take off though.
 
Jonny_B said:
lotta jargon at the end there, but i have to point out that the static coefficient of friction is always higher than the kinetic coefficient of friction.

it would still take off though.
Click to expand...

Oops, you're right. It's kind of irrelevant though, the important difference is between rolling and sliding friction. :eek:

For example if instead of wheels the plane sat on massive slabs of granite. :fly:
 
Sarcasmo said:
Oops, you're right. It's kind of irrelevant though, the important difference is between rolling and sliding friction. :eek:

For example if instead of wheels the plane sat on massive slabs of granite. :fly:
Click to expand...
that would definitely be an issue, mostly because with wheels you don't need to overcome the static friction between the rubber and the road to move forward, just the static and then kinetic friction within the wheel bearing between greased parts.

so it would be safe to say that if the plane was a granite block without wheels and the treadmill was a normal runway, the plane wouldn't take off. which hardly seems worth discussing. granite blocks aren't expected to fly under most circumstances.

(i know what you meant about just replacing the wheels, just hyperbolizing for shit and giggles)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back