Riddle me this batman

Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum

Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
:D I'm kinda stuck on the requirements to build a giant high speed conveyor belt that can keep speed with a Boeing or Airbus type aircraft. Given the loading it would have to be a series of gigantic rollers with some type of composite-flexo fabric-belt. I would hate to see the lubrication order on that site. Anywise, I don't think the plane will take off because its not moving forward to cut through the air and reduce the air pressure on the top of the airfoils in order to produce lift . :D
 
Last edited:
and in a tug of war.

One team pulls with a 1000lbs in one direction and the other team pulls with a 100lbs in the other direction. What's the tension in the rope?

 
I just posted this in "the other board"'s forum. With their arcane structure, it aught to be funny to watch this thread completely take over the forum!!!

:bad:

You guys remember the engineering equations thread over there?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
and in a tug of war.
One team pulls with a 1000lbs in one direction and the other team pulls with a 100lbs in the other direction. What's the tension in the rope?
There is 1100 lbs of tension, but that rope is still gonna move in the direction of the 1000

:thumbsup:

 
I just posted this in PPI's forum. With their arcane structure, it aught to be funny to watch this thread completely take over the forum!!!
:bad:
Why would you do that?

They are going to ban you now. I hope you didn't say the pilot was eating a sandwich, cause you'll get burned at the stake.

 
I've been reading this post and have to say my vote is with MA-PE. But then I'm an electrical engineer so I would just cut the power to the conveyor belt, or interfere with the control system. I do have a question though-

I am assuming we are taking a fixed reference point that is independent of hte conveyor and the plane to describe relative speed (or velocity). This reference point is the same as the air, assuming no wind. so the questionis the motion of the plane, or more specifically the wings, with respect to this fixed reference point (or the air). My question is, if my assumptions are correct, how can the plane and the wheels travel at different speeds? (I'm not talking rotation speed of the wheels, I'm talking forward motion of the wheel assembly). Wouldn't the wheels come off?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is 1100 lbs of tension, but that rope is still gonna move in the direction of the 1000
very good, but I intended to post.

One team pulls with a 1000lbs in one direction and the other team pulls with a >1000lbs< in the other direction. What's the tension in the rope?

following this logic:

1. The conveyor moves as fast as the plane, not the wheels. The plane moves 300 feet forward relative to the ground, the conveyor move 300 feet backwards relative to the ground, the plane moves 600 feet forward relative to it's initial point on the belt. The wheels spin enough times to cover 600 feet, the conveyor does not move 600 feet. In this case the plane will take off.
there's 2000 lbs in the rope. :wtf:

 
A rope is fixed in tension, a wheel isn't. It rotates as a result of the forces put on it.

If the plane were roped to the conveyor belt, we'd have no flight.

 
I believe that the intent of the the problem statement means that the conveyor, acting as the ground that the plane is sitting on will effectively cancel any forward displacement that the plane attempts to make resulting in a net displacement of zero. This is the same as the rope problem. If the conveyor was frozen and the plane were traveling at 10 ft/sec then making the conveyor travel ay 10 /sec in the opposite direction would make the plane stationary again.

Reading anything further into the wording of the problem statement changes the problem dramatically.

 
I'm reading the problem the same as MA_PE. Maybe that's why we agree. I see a treadmill with a pole sticking out of the ground next to it. You are running on the treadmill with your arms out like wings. Your fingers point directly at the pole, and never move relative to the pole. That way, I don't see how you could take off.

 
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060203.html

On first encounter this question, which has been showing up all over the Net, seems inane because the answer seems so obvious. However, as with the infamous Monty-Hall-three-doors-and-one-prize-problem (see The Straight Dope: "On Let's Make a Deal" you pick Door #1, 02-Nov-1990), the obvious answer is wrong, and you, Berj, are right--the plane takes off normally, with no need to specify frictionless wheels or any other such foolishness. You're also right that the question is often worded badly, leading to confusion, arguments, etc. In short, we've got a topic screaming for the Straight Dope.

First the obvious-but-wrong answer. The unwary tend to reason by analogy to a car on a conveyor belt--if the conveyor moves backward at the same rate that the car's wheels rotate forward, the net result is that the car remains stationary. An aircraft in the same situation, they figure, would stay planted on the ground, since there'd be no air rushing over the wings to give it lift. But of course cars and planes don't work the same way. A car's wheels are its means of propulsion--they push the road backwards (relatively speaking), and the car moves forward. In contrast, a plane's wheels aren't motorized; their purpose is to reduce friction during takeoff (and add it, by braking, when landing). What gets a plane moving are its propellers or jet turbines, which shove the air backward and thereby impel the plane forward. What the wheels, conveyor belt, etc, are up to is largely irrelevant. Let me repeat: Once the pilot fires up the engines, the plane moves forward at pretty much the usual speed relative to the ground--and more importantly the air--regardless of how fast the conveyor belt is moving backward. This generates lift on the wings, and the plane takes off. All the conveyor belt does is, as you correctly conclude, make the plane's wheels spin madly.

A thought experiment commonly cited in discussions of this question is to imagine you're standing on a health-club treadmill in rollerblades while holding a rope attached to the wall in front of you. The treadmill starts; simultaneously you begin to haul in the rope. Although you'll have to overcome some initial friction tugging you backward, in short order you'll be able to pull yourself forward easily.

As you point out, one problem here is the wording of the question. Your version straightforwardly states that the conveyor moves backward at the same rate that the plane moves forward. If the plane's forward speed is 100 miles per hour, the conveyor rolls 100 MPH backward, and the wheels rotate at 200 MPH. Assuming you've got Indy-car-quality tires and wheel bearings, no problem. However, some versions put matters this way: "The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, moving in the opposite direction of rotation." This language leads to a paradox: If the plane moves forward at 5 MPH, then its wheels will do likewise, and the treadmill will go 5 MPH backward. But if the treadmill is going 5 MPH backward, then the wheels are really turning 10 MPH forward. But if the wheels are going 10 MPH forward . . . Soon the foolish have persuaded themselves that the treadmill must operate at infinite speed. Nonsense. The question thus stated asks the impossible -- simply put, that A = A + 5 -- and so cannot be framed in this way. Everything clear now? Maybe not. But believe this: The plane takes off.

 
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/191034-1.html

What I learned from Old Hack was that an updated version of a question aimed at confusing folks over relative measurements of airplane motion and the medium in which it operates had shown up on the Internet, and it was causing the fracas in the Lounge. The question that has been going around is not particularly artfully worded, and I think that has caused some of the disagreements, but I'll repeat it as it is shown: "On a day with absolutely calm wind, a plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyor). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyor moves in the opposite direction. The conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the airplane ever take off?" My comment: Notice that the question does not state that the conveyor's movement keeps the airplane over the starting position relative to the ground, just that it moves in the direction opposite to any movement of the airplane. Initially, about a third of the folks here said that the airplane could not ever takeoff, because the conveyor would overcome the speed of the airplane and it could never get any airspeed. The rest said the airplane would fly. The "It won't fly, Rocky" group said that the conveyor would hold back the airplane. They asked us to imagine a person running on a treadmill. As he or she sped up, the treadmill would be programmed to speed up, just as the conveyor in the problem, and the person would remain over the same locus on the earth, while running as fast as possible. The argument was that if the airplane started to move forward, the conveyor program was set up to move the conveyor at exactly that speed, in the opposite direction, thus, the airplane would never move relative to the ground, and, because the air was calm, it could never get any wind over its wings. One of the analogies presented was the person rowing at three mph upstream in a river on a calm day. However, the current was flowing downstream at three mph, so the resultant speed with reference to the stream bank and air was zero, and thus there was no wind on the rowboat. I watched and listened to the disagreement for a while and was fascinated to see that the argument seemed to split between those who had some engineering or math background, all of whom said the airplane would takeoff and fly without any problem; and those with some other background, who visualized the airplane as having to push against the conveyor in order to gain speed. Because the conveyor equaled the airplane's push against the conveyor, the airplane stayed in one place over the ground and in the calm air could not get any airspeed and fly. It was an interesting argument, but as things progressed, more rational heads prevailed, pointing out that the airplanes do not apply their thrust via their wheels, so the conveyor belt is irrelevant to whether the airplane will takeoff. One guy even got one of those rubber band powered wood and plastic airplane that sell for about a buck, put it on the treadmill someone foolishly donated to the Lounge years ago, thinking that pilots might actually exercise. He wound up the rubber band, set the treadmill to be level, and at its highest speed. Then he simultaneously set the airplane on the treadmill and let the prop start to turn. It took off without moving the slightest bit backwards.

 
Those are two explanations from very informed sources. If you still can't see that the plane will take off, there is no hope. :suicide:

I think this horse is dead. Anyone want to venture a guess on the baloon in the car question?

 
Now I see it! There is something in that question still drives me nuts. By the way- I do have an engineering and math background, including a BS, 800 on my math SATs and a PE, but it didn't seem to make any difference. :dunno:

 
Damn Sap. Did you write that with your feet?

Good illistration.

I don't think any amount of LOGIC will sway some.

At least benbo has finally seen the light.

Welcome to the logic side of the force!!!!!

I absolutely love this thread!! It should get stickied.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I didn't come around before I certainly will after that drawing. I always agree with the first person to whip out a drawing accompanied by some equations.

 

Latest posts

Back
Top