Well /sci/?

Yes, kinda.

If the engines are running the plane still needs to gain enough momentum to take off. This can be achieved by lengthening to conveyor belt enough so the plane has room to gain speed and begin to lift. With such a system, since the plane has wheels, you don't need a conveyerbelt at all and instead can just have a traditional runway.

The plane lifts because of air moving by the wings really fast, not because of the wheels spinning really fast

>>8521044
As stated, assuming frictionless wheels, vacuum, spherical cows etc, etc, then the following happens:

The wheels and the treadmill instantaneously accelerate to light speed. The plane attempts to accelerate forward, but cannot move because its wheels now have infinite speed and thus infinite mass.

>>8521044

No, bernoulli's principal dictates that it cannot.

Any other answers are meme/troll bullshit.

Any and all aircraft require the pressure generated from the shape/speed of the wing to create upward lift. By mirroring the speed of the aircraft in the exact opposite way, the relative speed of the plane is 0mph. Thus, no lift can be created.

Unless there is some sort of outside force like a hurricane headwind, that plane isn't doing shit besides running in place.

>>8521100
if you stand on a skateboard on a treadmill and pull yourself forward by the rails while the speed of the mill increases at the same rate, will you move forward?

>>8521070
This happens because the speed of the treadmill (v_t) is stated to exactly match that of the wheel (v_w). The speed of the wheel is simply the speed of the wheel's rotation (v_r) plus the speed of the plane (v_p). If we assume no-slipping, then v_t = v_r and so v_t = v_w = v_r + v_p = v_t + v_p.

Most people here conclude that if v_t = v_t + v_p, then v_p must be zero and the plane cannot move forward. However this analysis is insufficient--the plane has acceleration from the engines and no force opposes that acceleration.

They forget that this is physics, not math. General relativity states that when adding velocities v_1 + v_2 = v_1 when and only when v_2 is zero or v_1 is c. So we simply set the speed of the treadmill to lightspeed, set the wheels to match, note that the force of the engines is finite and that its mass is infinite, and so the plane experiences no acceleration.

>>8521109
well actually now that I think about it the wheels would become black holes and the plane would get sucked into it so there would be some acceleration in the downward direction

>>8521100
>Unless there is some sort of outside force like a

like a jet engine maybe?

Planes aren't cars. A car moves because the wheels can generate torque. Plane wheels aren't powered, they move because of jet engines.

>>8521114
I hope you are all satisfied now that the proper answer has been stated in plain (ah, puns) English. Thank you for your time I'm closing this thread up.

/thread

>>8521107

Yes, for the same reason as the hurricane factor. There is an outside force. If there were big bungee cords on the wingtips pulling the plane forward it would move forward. But so long as the plane's energy is isolated to the plane, with no external factors (even engines), and the treadmill just mirrors the speed of the plane, it's not going anywhere. Don't be retarded.

NO! No lift = No takeoff. Fucking idiot.

>>8521044
Please fuck off with this shit.

>>8521124
>>8521126
Excuse me, I've closed the thread as the question has been answered. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.

>>8521116
Stop samefagging, OP.

No-one is suggesting that the plane is propelled by its wheels, and you know that.

>>8521132
I'm glad you're closing this stupid fucking thread. Its garbage and so are you.

>>8521044
The plane will explode

>>8521124
You cannot possibly be this retarded. Jet engines are mounted on the fucking wing, if that does not exert a force on the wings what the fuck does.

What happens to the wheels is irrelevant, they would rotate twice as fast as in a normal runway but they are in free rotation so who cares.

>>8521351
>You cannot possibly be this retarded. Jet engines are mounted on the fucking wing, if that does not exert a force on the wings what the fuck does. What happens to the wheels is irrelevant, they would rotate twice as fast as in a normal runway but they are in free rotation so who cares.


this.... A million times this. Whoever posted this dumb ass question in the first place should shove a gun up their ass and pull the trigger.

>>8521044
Put on those slidey things for chairs and move perpendicular to the direction of the wheels with a pickemerup truck until it's off the conveyer. Check fuel and fire it up.

File: image.jpg (56KB, 396x382px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 396x382px

Yes.
Jet engine pushes plane forward so plane will move.
Belt makes wheels spin faster but can't stop the engine.

>>8521044

How often does this get posted on /sci/?

>>8521100
This is the right answer

Now Im imagining a retarted alternative reality where planes lift off of conveyor belts without wheels, then crash everytime they try to land. Thanks OP

>>8521044
it takes off because plane gets its force from its engine, not from the wheels,
therefore jet engine will generate enough force to lift up the plane and take off

File: images.jpg (22KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 384x384px

This thread is full of morons that have no idea what they're talking about. If the plane stays still relative to the air (which I believe is what OP was implying) IT WON'T LIFT OFF.

>>8521955
It's irrelevant where the force comes from. If you push a shopping cart on a treadmill, it's exactly the same as strapping a propeller to it or a motor to the wheels or whatever. If you push the treadmill forward relative to the ground, then its wheels moved faster than the treadmill.

>>8521100
>any other answers are meme/troll bullshit

stopped reading there

As long as the ratio of belt speed to tire speed is the same as the friction coefficient it won't take off.
Although the plane will technically be moving, just won't fly.

>>8521771
Yes it will move.. but, not relative to the surrounding air.. thus it won't fly.

>>8521044
Probably not, if the conveyor belt moves at the same speed as a 747 on takeoff roll, it isn't going to go anywhere. Until they shut down the engines, then it goes flying off the end of the runway.

>>8522143
>Probably not, if the conveyor belt moves at the same speed as a 747 on takeoff roll, it isn't going to go anywhere.
Except, as everyone has already pointed out, the engines on an aircraft aren't connected to the wheels. The engines produce thrust which will push the aircraft forwards, and the running conveyor belt lacks any means to push back on the place. since the wheels are free-spinning.

File: the future 1.1.png (269KB, 640x300px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 640x300px

>>8521044
yes faggot brainlets expose yourselves for the idiots you are by posting your failure to understand the plane will fly. I enjoy drinking my coffee and getting a good laugh at your expense.

>>8522159
>>8522190
Stop samefagging anytime

>>8521044
No because the conveyer belt pushes along a line and not a surface area. Thus the air around the planes wings is only moving to create thrust to offset the force in its wheels. The remaining air is static, as opposed to the real scenario where the surrounding air will be pulled past the wings do to the airs friction with the ground that is being pulled by the wheels.

>>8522199
Due, not do

>>8522159
Are you retarded or trolling?

>>8522126
That's how I interpreted the question. How would the wings create lift if the mill is keeping the plane stationary? Make it a float plane in a stream of water you can control the speed of, balancing thrust of propulsion with opposite flow of water. I feel like I'm wrong though. I'll just keep selling drugs I guess.

This board is filled with fucking retards.
Yes it would take off. It would go forwad as fast as it does on any other runway because the wheels are what's pushing it. They'll just spin as fast as the plane is going relative to the ground.
Anyone who says anything else is literally fucking retarded or trolling

>>8523458
Fuck. The wheels AREN'T what's pushing it. Wish we had post editing

>>8523458
Another way to think about it is, the plane moves relative to the air around it, not to the ground. At most the conveyor would make a relatively small force in the opposite direction to the engine thrust due to friction in the bearings.

>>8523460
>Wish we had post editing
Hell no. Not on this site. Could you imagine the abuse? Far simpler to just reply to the post as fast as possible with the correction.

What part of "the wheels spin up to light speed and create a black hole" did you people not understand.

This is not a joke, this is not a meme, this is literally the answer to the problem as stated.

So long as the wheels do not slip, the treadmill *instantaneously and exactly* matches the rotational speed of the wheels, and the plane experiences forward thrust from the engines, this is the only possible answer.

>>8521053
>This can be achieved by lengthening to conveyor belt enough so the plane has room to gain speed and begin to lift
I don't think you understand it, you don't need the conveyor belt to be a certain length because it will always match the speed of the plane.

>>8523512
I don't think you understand. Black hole. Only valid answer.

yes the plane will take off, the only thing the conveyor belt does is roll the wheels and if you think the wheel bearing friction is greater than the power of 4 jet engines I think you'd better go back to school

>>8523614
No the plane will not take off. It will be sucked into a black hole. Only valid answer.

>>8521044
The engines apply force to the plane, not torque to the wheels. The plane would be made to move forward by the engines, applying speed to the rotation of the wheels. This causes the conveyor belt to speed up, which in turn makes the wheels spin even faster since the plane is still applying momentum. Essentially, forward motion of the plane is still possible and it will still accelerate and eventually take off.

>>8523867
No, forward motion is impossible because the plane get sucked into a black hole. Only valid answer.

>>8523631
>>8523883
Hahaha, very well memed my intelecually gifted friend

File: e31ca674de0cb5d72fa6557a678a02dab086c43d74088476e01a00c9667aa399.jpg (284KB, 632x869px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 632x869px

>2 days ago
>get told this place has the smartest folk on the big board
>alrite lets check /sci/
>see threads like these popping up every 3 minute for the last 2 days

>>8524444
See >>8523502
Not a meme. Assuming spherical cows, the problem has two aspects

1. There is a treadmill that exactly and instantaneously matches the speed of the tire. But forward motion occurs on a treadmill when and only when the speed of the wheel is greater than the speed of the treadmill. The speed of forward motion is exactly the difference between the speed of the wheel and the speed of the treadmill.

2. There is a force, F, exerted on the airplane that is unopposed by any other force in the free-body diagram. So after
t seconds, the plane is moving it's m mass forward at a speed of Ft/m.

So the plane must accelerate and yet cannot move forward at the same time by points 1 and 2. How do we resolve this? We know that the speed of forward motion plus the speed of the treadmill is the speed of the wheel. S_f + S_t = S_w. But we assumed S_t = S_w, so S_f + S_w = S_w. Naively we might conclude that S_f = 0, but this is physics, not math and we're adding speeds, not integers. When S_w = c, the speed of light, S_f + S_w = S_w is true for all S_f.

So either S_w is c or it is not. If it's not c then we have already shown that 0 = S_f = Ft/m, for all t. But this is contradiction for all nonzero F, noninfinte m. So S_w is c for all t > 0. The treadmill constraint is satisfied for all S_f when S_w is c. All that remains is the free-body constraint, that S_f = tF/m. F remains constant, but the wheels, spinning at light speed now have infinite mass. So S_f = tF/m = 0.

Treadmill and wheels both are now black holes due to their infinite mass and a sphere of infinite gravitational energy expands outward at lightspeed, infinitely accelerating every object it encounters towards the treadmill and wheels. Far away galaxies inflate away from us faster than lightspeed and are left untoched by this apocalypse. For all t > 0.

>>8524444
>>8525122
Almost forgot. Only valid answer.