9/10 people get this wrong A plane is standing on a large conveyor

>>590884453
Yes

Mythbusters already did an episode in this, it is able to take off

>>590884453
Yes. Everyone who says No is a bait or has no idea how a plane works.

Yes, the plane just needs to pick up speed before starting to climb

>>590884453
Fail thread. Go home faggot.

in this exact construction it won't be able to take off because there is no forward speed. I've seen the Mythbusters thing yesterday after the first thread and that plane definitely had forward speed and therefore lift.

File: 1420517648015.jpg (122KB, 605x597px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 605x597px

>>590884453
what are the odds?

>>590884453
If the speed was matched perfectly and the plane remained stationary (unlike that fucked mythbusters test) then the plane can not lift due to no wind flowing beneath the wings to make it lift.

File: 1420538151935.jpg (64KB, 727x411px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 727x411px

No.

Wait someone explain how it would take off, I apparently know nothing of planes. How do they work?

>>590885174

The wheels on the ground have nothing to do with the forward movement of the aircraft, therefore the conveyor belt does nothing to impede forward movement.

>>590884453
the plane will move away from the conveyor and most likely just crash wenn rolling down that gap.

>>590885174
>>590885460
Damn it, you are retarded! Of course it is moving forward!

"Aircraft propellers or airscrews[1] convert rotary motion from piston engines, turboprops or electric motors to provide propulsive force."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller_(aeronautics)

>>590885751
This. All of you who say no are confusing a plane with a car.

Yes because the plane is moving forward and generating lift
you just created a still liftoff platform

Can't believe you baited me. NO! Plane speed doesn't matter. Only the difference in speed between the wings and the air moving around.

File: 2094_1394493577.jpg (133KB, 425x282px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 425x282px

>>590885460
You'll find that all airplanes take off at full power, and at full noise, the wash from the prop is enough to provide lift.
Also, the plane will accelerate off the belt regardless of the speed of the conveyor. The plane isn't limited by a gearbox to the wheels, But by air speed.

>>590885460
The wheels of the plane do nothing but keep it off the ground.
It uses the propeller to pull itself forward, the wheels could be spinning any speed any direction and the plane wouldn't care. The plane would pull itself off the conveyor belt in OP's image and probably break itself from the fall. If the conveyor belt was a mile long the plane could take off.

>>590885898
Do you even lift?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29

>>590884453
the plane doesn't move

no lift

No because theres no velocity difference from the air on the wings. Therefor no difference in pressure.

No.

>>590885600
Air speed is what a plane requires to liftoff, due to the air passing over the wings generating lift. If the plane is moving on a conveyor belt, then it is moving in one direction while the conveyor moves in the opposite direction, however this does not mean that the air is not passing over the wings of the plane.

>>590884453
There is no air pressure on the wings. No lift.

File: 1410079924979.jpg (25KB, 324x278px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 324x278px

>>590886496

>>590884804
Wow you're retarded.

>>590884453
Lift and speed aren't the same.

>>590884453
the plane has to move forward to take off, if it's on a treadmill it's just going to sit there

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY

>>590884453
I think the reason people get this wrong is that they dont know that the wheels are not even connected to a motor. So there is nothing pulling it back, it wont stay on that treadmill for more than 3 seconds

>>590884453
in reality what will happen is the plane will move forward because the prop pushes it that way and the wheels will have no resistance to act upon it and the plane will fall off the conveyor belt

>>590885574

That's a shitty plane, man. I wouldn't use it to fix a stuck door.

>>590886945
>>590886961
this

>>590884453
I love AIR

>>590884453
the plane doesn't have a propeller, it's just a disc

>>590886865

Why would the plane just sit there? If you were on a treadmill set up in the same way wearing roller skates, and you tried to pull yourself forward with a rope, what would happen?

>>590886900
i love how the sheet moved much faster than the plane creating a form of traction that sped the wheels up. In OP pic the device is able to match the speed causing no traction but a idle plane with spinning wheels.

Do not do this experiement! It creates mustard gas.

The plane would fall off the back of the conveyor.

>>590887588
Nothing about the wheels matters.

The only thing that matters is the speed of the aircraft in relation to the speed of the air around it. Totally disregard whatever is happening with the wheels.

File: 1333081451699.jpg (101KB, 1024x776px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1024x776px

>>590884453

This is now a Trol Physics thread.

>>590888146
That'd work though, wouldn't it? Not for long and you probably couldn't start your car with it, but you could at least listen to the radio or something.

File: 1394098091440.png (7KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 800x600px

Lurking, for science.

>>590887869
This. You could even replace the wheels with skids. The plane will move forwards at any costs.

>>590884453
No

>>590884453
No, there wouldn't be any air moving over the wings to generate the needed lift.

>>590884453
No, just no. This is the wind generated by the movement that will take the plane into the air. The wings are shaped for this.

No wind on the wings, no take off.

>>590888341
Why wouldn't this work? If you just freeze it in it's near-boiling state then unfreezing it would covert it back to it's original state. Is it untrue because you can only use it once or...?

>>590888530
Someone care to explain what law of physics this is breaking?

>>590888731
retard alert!

Let's use this analogy. Instead of looking at the airplane, let's back up and go into the airport. Suppose you're walking down to your gate
and pulling your carry-on bag behind you. It's a nice new bag with low friction wheels. No problem! Up ahead you see one of those moving
walkways. You don't see anyone coming, so you decide to do a little experiment. You go over to the walkway that is moving TOWARDS you and
place your bag on it. Meanwhile, you step off to the side of the walkway, and still holding on to the handle of your bag, you continue to walk along. In fact, you intentionally walk along at the same speed that the moving walkway is going, just in the opposite direction. Question: does the bag move or does it remain stationary as you keep walking? Obviously it moves with you. So why does your bag move forward when you are walking at the same speed of the conveyor going
in the opposite direction?

The answer to that question is also the answer to the airplane-conveyor question. To complete the analogy, the pull of your arm is analogous to the force of the airplane engines. The bag's
wheels are analogous to the airplane tires. Do the nice low-friction wheels on your bag on the conveyor pull against you anymore than they
do when you're just pulling your bag along normally? No, they don't. They are free-wheeling, after all. Meanwhile, you're pulling the bag
with the same force in both cases. So in both cases, the bag keeps moving forward. Likewise with the airplane, the pull of the engines
doesn't change nor does the force on the airplane imparted by the tires change no matter what the ground is doing underneath the tires.
You have the same force imbalance in either case, and since Force = mass x accceleration, you have the same acceleration. Remember, we are talking airplane engines which push against the AIR, not the ground. The acceleration is with respect to the AIR, thus the airplane develops a speed relative to the air and can eventually take off.

>>590888936
the force needed to squeeze past the seal would overcome the buoyancy.

>>590888936
I think it's something to do with eddy currents. Look it up. I'm probably wrong though

>>590886016
Which makes it a kinda interesting project.

>>590888915
It needs to decrease in temperature in order to freeze.

>>590888936
The magnet that pulls down one metallic ball pushes away the next ball. Do you know how a generator / motor works? It only works since the electromagnet turns on and off repeatedly.

>>590889044
it hurtttts

File: 1420060265948.gif (3MB, 480x271px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x271px

>>590889251
It is an electromagnet that turns off repeatedly.

>>590888936
well first off the magnet wouldnt just pull only down, it would continue to pull the ball even as it passes, creating a force opposite of what you want. Second, generators have resistance to turn them, way more than the force of a ball filled with air in water, especially since the ball is resisting its own chain.

>>590889251
Sorry, it doesn't push away the next ball but it would attract the ball that was just pushed down and the magnet would pull the ball back.

>>590884453
Yes OP, and check me dubs

>>590886016
No, the liftoff platform still needs to be the same length. The airplane has to travel the same distance to reach the same airspeed to enable liftoff. The only thing different is that the conveyor belt is causing the wheels to move twice as fast as they normally do.

File: 1408327027178.png (344KB, 691x510px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 691x510px

>>590889499

>>590886612
Note the obviousness newfriend

>>590889042
Yeah, concerning you.

>>590888936

>>590889102
This.

Even with a magic seal, the ball needs to displace its own volume in water at that depth in order to enter. The work that takes is equal to the work the ball can do as it floats back to the surface.

>>590884453
http://blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/

>>590889413
Well and if it's an electromagnet, you would need electricity. Therefore this machine is pointless, since you would turn electric energy into mechanical energy and then back into electric energy which the machine consumes again.

File: al_gore.jpg (28KB, 484x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 484x400px

>>590889533
You dubs too

It doesn't matter how fast the wheels move... There is no airflow so no lift is generated

>>590889547
You are retarded if you think a plane moves forward by its wheels instead by its turbine. A plane is not a car!

>>590888466

No it wouldn't work.

The car needs like 300CC of cracking power to start. the AAs wouldn't even produce more than 1 or 2 CCs.

Plus Car batteries recharge while you drive and those look like normal batteries to me.

there is still airflow from the props dingus

>>590884453
Anyone who says yes is thick I have my ppl and it dosnt matter how fast the wheels move you need air resistance to create a vacume on top of the wing to create lift. If the plane stays in the same location it can't fly anywhere

>>590886496
Top kek

>>590886496
As a matter of fact that is a better question.

File: image.jpg (33KB, 330x248px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 330x248px

>>590884453

>>590889044
The worst part is some asshole would have tried this

>>590888936

It's the law of thermal dynamics.

>>590889908
>vacume

File: 1420540323147.jpg (203KB, 1742x757px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1742x757px

>>590889617

>>590889908
the argument is that the plane would still move foreward because the wheels aren't what is accelerating the plane.
See: >>590889088

>>590889908
Lift has nothing to do with a vacuum on the top of the wing.

It's the air under the wing that is directed downward, causing an equal and opposite push upward.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html

>>590888292
This actually works. They built this in Dubai.

File: 1364162176866.jpg (163KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1200x800px

>>590884453
No, it can't.

The force that lifts up the plane is provided by the air passing the wings - see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29

since the plane is not moving relative to the air, there is no force -> the plane can't take off

>>590890180
It would work if you were on a raft on top of the bubble of water. If you're swimming, you'll break the surface tension and fall right through.

>>590884453
It depends on how long the conveyor belt is. The plane will move forward since it is the propellor and not the wheels that is causing it to move.
The wheels will spin doubly fast.
The plane will either take off of roll off the conveyor belt killing all aboard, depending on how long the belt is

>>590890200
Yo, retard, the plane is moving relative to the air because the propulsion isn't provided by the wheels but by the propellor, the propellor doesn't give a crap about the conveyor belt.

Do you people even think?

>>590889044
why doesn't this work

>>590890132

The 1st problem is friction of all the moving parts will cause drag and energy loss.

Plus water would piss out each time the ball squeezed through the seal.

>>590886182
Its the air which is moving faster above the wings than beneath.
This causes an underpressure above the wings and the plane gets "sucked" up into the air at high enough speeds.
The prop is just there for creating the speed.

>>590890549
No. See

>>590890152


That's a common misconception.

>>590890335
But humans are buoyant so you would just float

>>590890513
because the signals would get crossed. my 1's and 0's would interfere with yours.

>>590890549

If you put the world largest wind tunnel turbine fan in front of the plane then it may get enough lift, but with no air movement the plane will never fly.

File: 1343858507569.jpg (128KB, 1078x741px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1078x741px

>>590890459
the amount of air moved by the propellor is far to small - just look at the size of an helicopter for comparison

>>590890657
Maybe if you stayed horizontal the whole time and were very careful not to break the surface tension, you might. But if you go just a little bit too vertical, you'll fall through.

File: illuminatinames.jpg (171KB, 1356x1032px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1356x1032px

>>590890518
>lubricated ball bearings
>clearly says prevents loss of water
>uses less energy than it produces
It just needs to be started.

>>590890513

Because the computers have to do what is known as a handshake with the other end, and if you have more than 1 receiving device then the handshake would never finish, so you'd get no connection at all...

>>590890715
No air movement = no lift.

People who don't pay attention in middle school physics shouldn't be here.

File: gw-itcrowdmosspopcorn.gif (3MB, 400x327px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x327px

Here we go again. Fight bitches!

>>590890335
yeah they use rafts

>>590890929

re-read it.

The plane can only move forward with the conveyor matching its speed. No wind on wings so plane remains still and no lift or flight

>>590890035
No it's not.
If you could spin it fast enough to match the rotor speed (my assumption of the equal test to the plane/treadmill test) you would completely destroy helicopter.

>>590884453
The plane still moves forward. The wheels spin twice as fast.

Mythbusters episode was beyond retarded. The planes moving which means air pressure can get under the wings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY

>>590891242
mythbuster nigger. they fucking proved it takes off.

>>590884453
this is retarded, you haven't addressed the one and only key aspect that relates to a planes ability to fly, its forward air speed, which translates to the amount of lift able to be generated by its wings. technically a plane can fly backwards if it is facing into a strong enough headwind and is able to maintain lift at low speeds, the Caribou is famous for this. if the convener belt matches the speed of the plane as it taxies then it is not generating any lift via forward air speed over the wings, which is what you need to make it fly.

>>590891352
It has nothing to do with how fast the turntable is spinning. The blades cut through the air, pushing it down, generating lift.

>>590888588
would this work?

To take off the plane needs flow of air under its wings.The plane will take of if the drag from the engine is strong enough to generate that flow. The belt is irrelevant.

>>590886496
It may eventually, but would have a harder time than if there was no turn table.
This is assuming the turn table is not on and assuming the rear propellor doesn't move faster than normal to compensate.
The propellors spin and the helo spins in the opposite direction but not as fast as it is heavy and has drag. So the propellors would have to reach a higher speed than normal before lift.
The helo would probably crash shortly after, having started its lift already in a spin.

>>590891519
The turntable would provide counter rotation to the blades. It will still take off, but the pilot will puke like a motherfucker.

>>590891519
The engine that is attached to the turn table is spinning. So the propellors loose speed

>>590892088
No the turntable doesn't turn the air. The only thing that matters is the speed of the blades through the air.

File: fuck y'all.jpg (47KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x480px

lol, i remember drawing this a long time ago in response to a similar thread....

File: mind-blown-meme-generator-physics-the-epic-mind-fuck-03fea1.jpg (51KB, 389x510px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 389x510px

>>590889187
>>590889314
>>590889712
>>590889902
>>590890132
>>590890285
>>590890492

>>590892170
The cats legs would simply fracture, out and back behind its self. Causing both the paws and butter to land on the surface of the counter.

>>590892306
I didn't say that, the turntable would make it harder for the engine to turn the blades at a speed that would allow the heli to take off.

File: 3df2ac072ca556a8ba547eb7839e3586.jpg (68KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 540x540px

>>590888827

>>590884453
Do you feel wind blowing in your face if your're on a treadmill?

No, the plane would not take off.

>>590891395

D'oh it just dawned on me that the conveyor belt could be moving at 10,000mph and the plane only at 50mph and the plane would move forward.

The wheels in a sense don't exist. They're just there to hold the plane up.

>>590886900
thats not even done right.

>>590890789
..wut?....
What the fuck are you talking about?
The propellor doesn't have to move the fucking air, it has to move the fucking plane, you know, the thing it was designed for.

Let me explain this to you again, THE CONVEYOR BELT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE PLANES DON'T MOVE USING THEIR WHEELS!

>>590892900

No shit sherlock, please don't ever think you are intelligent again.

>>590889044
What is 10Base-2 ?

9/11 doesn't get this joke

>>590892900

That being said, if the plane was moving backwards on the conveyor belt at 100mph and the plane started the engine and then set off to reach 50mph.

Wouldn't it then just stay stationary?

File: 1419063498581.jpg (76KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 720x960px

>>590884453

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swgU1x9T-EY

File: IMG_20141109_220549.gif (200KB, 320x210px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 320x210px

Relativity. Plane needs relative air velocity. Not a fucking dumb as fuck inproportionate god damn conveyor belt. And besides, I don't know what conveyor belts you've been looking at but they aren't that fucking big. And if they were, they'd probably be for transporting your mom to McDonald's and back... for fucks sake. > tfw I'm right

>>590888559
I am... of them. They had sex while in freefalling.

>>590892624
No, it would have no effect on that. It doesn't matter how fast the blades are spinning relative to the body of the helicopter. The only thing that matters is the speed of the blades through the air.

>>590893214
....NO!

It was slowly decrease it's backwards movement, then become stationary, then start moving forward.

>>590884453
Yes

>>590893063
Isn't it amazing to be an atheist with 165 IQ who smokes weed every day? 420 blaze it while slamming all the morons online am I right?

>>590893327
Hehe, that actually made me LOL, have a cookie.

>>590893435
I don't smoke weed

File: 060203.gif (18KB, 300x217px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x217px

Fuck the theory part. I'm gonna experiment.

File: Will-It-Fly.png (108KB, 1209x553px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1209x553px

The fan is blowing air out at the plane at the same speed the plane is travelling

File: 1347217509661.jpg (533KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 1920x1080px

>>590892941
who cares - it is clearly statet in ops post that the belt moves so fast that the plane remains at the same spot the whole time
this was not true in the mythbusters experiment, that's why the plane was able to take off

plane not moving -> air not moving under the wings -> plane does not take off

>>590893805
the conveyor belt could mve at twice the planes speed and it wouldn't do jack you moron

>>590893799
It's a rocket with wings.

>>590884453
no

>>590892802
That's because my feet are pushing against the ground. but a jet engine pushes against the air. If I attach a jet engine to my body on a treadmill and set them both for 100 mph that jet engine is gonna blast me forward past the treadmill no matter what. This whole question is to see if you understand how thrust works.

The Hypothesis are clear, the plane "moves" in one direction and the conveyor moves in the opposite at the same speed, it means that the plane "fucking moves" at 300km/h and the conveyor moves at the opposite direction at 300km/h. The plane "is moving" for the hypothesis so dont tell me that it's not moving. If the plane speed is 0km/h then the conveyor speed would be 0km/h

>>590888476
Shit, I need to know if there's any truth in this one.

>>590893805
The plan still moves forward. The wheels don't propel it, the propellor does. The wheels will move twice as fast and it will still move forward.

>>590884453
it depends of front motor speed. fact.

>>590894124
I really don't want to accept that this one won't work. But, it won't work.

You push the stick, but you're only pushing the collection of molecules at your end of the stick. They move, and they move the molecules ahead of them, which move the molecules ahead of them, and so forth. It would actually take much longer than a year for the movement to reach the opposite end of the stick.

I know. I don't like that, either.

File: 1327936424879.jpg (52KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 800x600px

>>590893968
you don't understand what i'm saying, do you?

>>590893805
The wheels will match the speed off the conveyor belt as long as the propellers are at the minimum required speed for the plane to move since they don't have engines in them. The thing that makes the plane go forward is the propeller pushing air backwards. It might be 4-6% harder for the plane to take off but as long as the wheels don't explode it will be just fine.

File: twinfan2.png (98KB, 1209x553px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1209x553px

Tthe belt cant hold the plane in one spot.
The question is flawed.

>>590894395
Do you know what that spinning blade thingy is called a "propeller"? please answer me.

>>590893214
This
>>590893374

To make the plane stand still you would only need a tiny baby bit of thrust, just enough to cancel out the friction of the wheels

>>590891892
it makes sence, so i guess?

>>590884453
They completely fucked up and they refuse to admit it.

The conveyer they used did not match thr speed of the plane, only forced the wheels on the plane to spin twice as fast. If the plane were completely stationary there would be 0 wind speed and 0 lift.

>>590894395
I understand you know nothing when it comes to thrust and lift.

http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/plane-conveyor.htm

File: 1319210461152.jpg (79KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 900x675px

>>590894398
ah, now i understand the concept - i sort of had it in my head that the plane would stand still! took a while...

pic slightly related...

>>590894395
>inb4 le was only pretending, u r all supir dumb and i r the meme master.

>>590884943
The wheels don't generate lift, you fucking imbicile. Wind needs to travel past the wings in order to generate lift. The plane will never take off unless there's a strong as fuck headwind flying direct at the nose of the plane.

Fuck you underaged retarded disgraces of humanity.

>>590884748
can u link the vid pls

>>590894823
You know what, I like you kiddo.

File: 042.png (247KB, 1156x668px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1156x668px

>>590893608

>>590894862
>getting THIS trolled

W-wait.. they /ARE/ trolling.. r-right?

>>590894124
No there isn't. It's hard to imagine, because the stick feels like a ridged single piece of matter, but it's not, it is made up of particles. Moving the the particles in one end of the stick pushes forward the ones throughout the stick which i turn push others forward.
While this seams instantaneous, it isn't.

File: 1317232515740.jpg (109KB, 525x1216px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 525x1216px

>>590894533
>>590894735
seems i had trouble with the original setup...

pic somewhat related...

>>590895050
Regardless if the person was trolling or not
>>590894862
got trolled like a motherfucker.

>>590888530
the balls would rust fast

>>590895178
Don't worry about things like this.
People learn every day.

from OP's problem:
>The planes moves in one direction
you:
>The plane is stationary

take one

>>590894650
I used to think that too but this proved me wrong
>>590889088

>>590895272
Painted A4 steel would last years

>>590884453
Assuming the propeller is actually spinning, the plane would move forwards and probably fall off the end of the treadmill. Given a strong enough propeller and a longer treadmill, the place would be able to take off.
If the propeller wasn't spinning however, the plane would remain stationary and not go anywhere.
This is all assuming the planes wheel bearings are frictionless as well.

>>590894944
you'd laugh till you wet your pants if you'd know what i do for a living (and probably would not believe me)

>>590895538
now i kinda want to know....
I promise I won't laugh.

>>590888466
Car batteries run at hundreds of amps to turn the starter motor. They run at ~12v @100-600amps. Those AA batteries will run at same voltage but hundreds of times less amps.

File: 1317277709688.jpg (84KB, 800x578px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 800x578px

>>590895538
oh, i forgott to add a pic

File: Sketch6243928.png (111KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 720x1280px

How about this one btards..
Big platform (sheet metal) is laid on ground and a helicopter is placed on top and bolted to the sheet metal. Assuming platform is wider than wingspan, and platform is only attatched to the helicopter, can helicopter lift off?

>>590886496
Has science gone too far?

>>590894887
www.google.com
welcome to the internet

>>590895496
If the propeller isn't spinning the plane would fall off the back of the conveyor belt.
even if the wheel bearings are frictionless the wheels aren't and they have around 1100 kg pushing down on them in total.

>>590895708
mythbusters did this one too, no it cant.

>>590895708
Yes, but it would have to displace enough air to lift that plate. It would be very difficult. But an infinitely powerful helicopter could do it.

I would doubt that a helicopter ever actually made could do it.

File: 1329421004704.jpg (326KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 600x900px

>>590895602
i do my phd in experimental quantumoptics =)
sometimes this stuff makes you blind for obvious/easy solutions

>>590884453
Answer is no. In order for a plane to take off it needs thrust, and lift. If the plane is standing on a conveyor belt, going one direction whilst the belt is going the other direction nearly at the same speed. It might as well be standing still. No lift generated from the speed. It might get thrust, but not sufficient enough for flight.

>>590895602
>>590895699

You do theoretical work, It's easy to see.

>>590895930
No. Any air dispersed downwards would create force equal and opposite to the force of the bolts locking down the helo. Rest of air is moving perp to the ground ie no lifting forces.

>>590896047
that's how wheels work not propellers

>>590886004
don't reproduce.

>>590895938
Yes, quantum optics is exactly the same as aeronautical engineering.

File: 1319209732285.jpg (159KB, 650x852px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 650x852px

>>590896069
no, i'm an experimentalist - usually i'm the one to make fun of them for not understanding how stuff works in real life ... that adds to my shame ;)

>>590896179
If the ground is flat, yes. If, though, there was any way for some air to sneak in under the plate, and if the rotor was powerful enough, and if the whole thing wouldn't tear itself to pieces...It would only take a little air getting under to start it.

But, yeah, if it was a flat plate on a flat surface...I guess not.

File: 1415365886757.jpg (14KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 500x334px

>>590884453
the answer is "yes" IF you pray and you believe that Jesus died for your sins and rose up to the Heavens after he was crucified and died, and now sits at the right hand of Yahweh, the Father.

Because everything in the Bible is true and with enough faith you can accomplish anything.

> 2015
> faith > science

>>590896230
ur dumb

>>590895807
The friction is the only thing to argue one way or the other.
IT takes of if...
It doesn't take off if...
If it is a radio controlled plane with good bearings then yes it flys. If it is an actual manned aircraft weighing 3,000 pounds of more, then friction may cause a problem.

File: IMG_20141111_210701.gif (860KB, 316x320px) Image search: [Google]

860KB, 316x320px

>>590896375
Top kek

>>590884453
Here's the answer. The question doesn't work.
The speed of the wheels to the plane has nothing to do with the flight of the plane. Lift is created by the wings. For the plane to take off the wings have to have air flowing over them. If the plane was not moving forward or backward relative to the ground and air that the conveyor belt is sitting on, but the wheels and conveyor belt were moving at any speed, the plane would not take off. If that same situation was true and the plane was moving forward with enough speed to create sufficient lift the plane would take off. The conveyor belt could be moving forwards making the plane's wheels spin backwards, but if the planes velocity relative to the wind around it is still great enough it will take off.
The question is flawed and needs to be elaborated upon. In it's current form, there is no answer.

Can someone explain how the plane will fly?

So the thrust generates enough force for the plane to take off? But I thought the lift comes from the flow of air...

Sorry neuroscience undergrad here

File: 1339591133956.jpg (42KB, 424x600px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 424x600px

>>590896261
ah, you know how it is ... you hear basic courses in every subject, so usually you have a nice grasp about things - makes you prone to oversee things, though