Comments on: Stupid People Refuting MythBusters over Plane/Conveyor Belt http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt The Weblog of Erik J. Barzeski Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:40:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Triffid http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-69062 Triffid Fri, 20 Jan 2012 03:25:24 +0000 http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-69062 [quote comment="68843"]The only way a conveyor belt could stop the plane is if the wheel bearings were so crappy that the wheels didn't move and -- and this is key -- the engine/propellor was incapable of providing sufficient thrust to overcome the friction. [/quote] Actually, this wouldn't "stop" the plane. The plane would be moving backwards on the belt. bbum said on December 21, 2011:

The only way a conveyor belt could stop the plane is if the wheel bearings were so crappy that the wheels didn't move and -- and this is key -- the engine/propellor was incapable of providing sufficient thrust to overcome the friction.

Actually, this wouldn't "stop" the plane. The plane would be moving backwards on the belt.

]]> By: Triffid http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-69061 Triffid Fri, 20 Jan 2012 03:18:37 +0000 http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-69061 [quote comment="69059"]" I at first thought that meant that the plane would be moving at the same speed relative to the belt, meaning that it wouldn't be moving at all relative to the ground. [/quote] Perhaps Mythbusters felt that since what you describe above is a physical impossibility, it wasn't necessary to explain it further. They evidently over-estimated the average persons' knowledge of aerodynamics. Come to think of it, I've met pilots who, when I described the myth, thought the plane would not take off. Scary!!! Jigguh said on January 19, 2012:

" I at first thought that meant that the plane would be moving at the same speed relative to the belt, meaning that it wouldn't be moving at all relative to the ground.

Perhaps Mythbusters felt that since what you describe above is a physical impossibility, it wasn't necessary to explain it further. They evidently over-estimated the average persons' knowledge of aerodynamics. Come to think of it, I've met pilots who, when I described the myth, thought the plane would not take off. Scary!!!

]]> By: Jigguh http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-69059 Jigguh Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:53:39 +0000 http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-69059 Wow, this argument got extremely heated for no reason. I'll agree that MythBusters did a poor job explaining the myth ahead of time. They simply said "will an airplane be able to take off when it is on a conveyor belt moving backward the same speed that the plane is moving forward?" I at first thought that meant that the plane would be moving at the same speed relative to the belt, meaning that it wouldn't be moving at all relative to the ground. Obviously, if this were the case, the plane would have no chance of taking off. If it's not moving, it doesn't matter at all how much its wheels spin on a conveyor belt; it will absolutely never get the lift as no wind will go over the wings. Then in the Mythbusters video, the plane is shown moving forward relative to the ground. I then realized that this meant the plane would move at the same speed as the conveyor belt but relative to the ground. Then, it is ridiculously obvious that the plane will take off. It will still be moving forward relative to the environment at its normal takeoff speed and get all the lift it needs. Sitting on the conveyor belt does nothing because spinning wheels don't make a plane take off. My only interest in the show was that their poor explanation made me think they were going to try to make a practically stationary plane take off, leaving me angry at the end when I realized what they actually meant. Wow, this argument got extremely heated for no reason. I'll agree that MythBusters did a poor job explaining the myth ahead of time. They simply said "will an airplane be able to take off when it is on a conveyor belt moving backward the same speed that the plane is moving forward?" I at first thought that meant that the plane would be moving at the same speed relative to the belt, meaning that it wouldn't be moving at all relative to the ground. Obviously, if this were the case, the plane would have no chance of taking off. If it's not moving, it doesn't matter at all how much its wheels spin on a conveyor belt; it will absolutely never get the lift as no wind will go over the wings. Then in the Mythbusters video, the plane is shown moving forward relative to the ground. I then realized that this meant the plane would move at the same speed as the conveyor belt but relative to the ground. Then, it is ridiculously obvious that the plane will take off. It will still be moving forward relative to the environment at its normal takeoff speed and get all the lift it needs. Sitting on the conveyor belt does nothing because spinning wheels don't make a plane take off. My only interest in the show was that their poor explanation made me think they were going to try to make a practically stationary plane take off, leaving me angry at the end when I realized what they actually meant.

]]> By: Triffid http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-68858 Triffid Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:11:50 +0000 http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-68858 [quote comment="68839"]I just saw the episode and as the myth was presented on the show, it wasn't done propery.. lets just leave it at that. Ok if the tarp can not hold the plane stationary relative to the ground, that's a fact. But why don't they even mention this in the first place? Perhaps, during the filming of this episode the producers and others involved could not have imagined that so many people would make such ridiculous assumptions after hearing what, to my mind, is a fairly simple brain-teaser. Especially after the answer has been explained over, and over, and over, and over....[/quote] Just read the statement, as given on the Mythbusters show and website: "An airplane cannot take off from a runway which is moving backwards (like a treadmill) at a speed equal to its normal ground speed during takeoff." Later, they tried to make their results of their tests clearer to those less gifted among us with the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEyfHwDdXSg There are not two answers. Martin said on December 21, 2011:

I just saw the episode and as the myth was presented on the show, it wasn't done propery.. lets just leave it at that.

Ok if the tarp can not hold the plane stationary relative to the ground, that's a fact. But why don't they even mention this in the first place?

Perhaps, during the filming of this episode the producers and others involved could not have imagined that so many people would make such ridiculous assumptions after hearing what, to my mind, is a fairly simple brain-teaser. Especially after the answer has been explained over, and over, and over, and over....

Just read the statement, as given on the Mythbusters show and website:

"An airplane cannot take off from a runway which is moving backwards (like a treadmill) at a speed equal to its normal ground speed during takeoff."

Later, they tried to make their results of their tests clearer to those less gifted among us with the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEyfHwDdXSg

There are not two answers.

]]> By: Erik J. Barzeski http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-68856 Erik J. Barzeski Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:13:01 +0000 http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-68856 [quote comment="68843"]The only way a conveyor belt could stop the plane is if the wheel bearings were so crappy that the wheels didn't move and -- and this is key -- the engine/propellor was incapable of providing sufficient thrust to overcome the friction.[/quote] Oh Bill. What if the Roadrunner bought Super Duper Glue from Acme and glued the plane to the conveyor belt? Surely that would be <em>another</em> way. ;-) bbum said on December 21, 2011:

The only way a conveyor belt could stop the plane is if the wheel bearings were so crappy that the wheels didn't move and -- and this is key -- the engine/propellor was incapable of providing sufficient thrust to overcome the friction.

Oh Bill. What if the Roadrunner bought Super Duper Glue from Acme and glued the plane to the conveyor belt? Surely that would be another way. ;-)

]]> By: bbum http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-68843 bbum Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:32:26 +0000 http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-68843 This has got to be the BEST comment thread EVAR! So much entertainment. And I don't even know why. The wheels of the plane <em>are not powered</em>. They could be frickin' blocks of ice and the plane could still take off (barring weight issues), conveyor belt be damned. The only way a conveyor belt could stop the plane is if the wheel bearings were so crappy that the wheels didn't move and -- and this is key -- the engine/propellor was incapable of providing sufficient thrust to overcome the friction. Dead simple. This has got to be the BEST comment thread EVAR! So much entertainment.

And I don't even know why.

The wheels of the plane are not powered. They could be frickin' blocks of ice and the plane could still take off (barring weight issues), conveyor belt be damned.

The only way a conveyor belt could stop the plane is if the wheel bearings were so crappy that the wheels didn't move and -- and this is key -- the engine/propellor was incapable of providing sufficient thrust to overcome the friction.

Dead simple.

]]> By: Erik J. Barzeski http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-68842 Erik J. Barzeski Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:31:43 +0000 http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-68842 [quote comment="68841"]Oh Erik, you're obviously a really cool guy who can sit behind a computer and call people names. That is so awesome and you're my hero. If you can't even tell if a plane on the tv is moving forward or not, you shouldn't go around calling other people stupid...[/quote] Moron (I may have misspelled your name): you are being stupid. Your own pre-conceived notions are preventing you from truly understanding the problem and, thus, from intelligently commenting on it. Of course the plane moves forward. DUH. <strong>There's nothing which says it cannot.</strong> The only people who think that's proving something are the idiots who "read into" the problem something that isn't there. The plane's wheels are free to rotate. The plane has a velocity related to the ground. The belt moves the same speed in the opposite direction. The wheels spin. <strong>Nothing prevents the plane from moving forward.</strong> Martin said on December 21, 2011:

Oh Erik, you're obviously a really cool guy who can sit behind a computer and call people names. That is so awesome and you're my hero.

If you can't even tell if a plane on the tv is moving forward or not, you shouldn't go around calling other people stupid...

Moron (I may have misspelled your name): you are being stupid. Your own pre-conceived notions are preventing you from truly understanding the problem and, thus, from intelligently commenting on it.

Of course the plane moves forward. DUH. There's nothing which says it cannot. The only people who think that's proving something are the idiots who "read into" the problem something that isn't there.

The plane's wheels are free to rotate. The plane has a velocity related to the ground. The belt moves the same speed in the opposite direction. The wheels spin.

Nothing prevents the plane from moving forward.

]]> By: Martin http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-68841 Martin Wed, 21 Dec 2011 19:55:02 +0000 http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-68841 Oh Erik, you're obviously a really cool guy who can sit behind a computer and call people names. That is so awesome and you're my hero. Anyway, the first thing you wrote here was: "It's not clearly evident." (that the aircraft is accelerating faster than the treadmill is being pulled.) WHAT???? If you can't even tell if a plane on the tv is moving forward or not, you shouldn't go around calling other people stupid... Oh Erik, you're obviously a really cool guy who can sit behind a computer and call people names. That is so awesome and you're my hero.
Anyway, the first thing you wrote here was:
"It's not clearly evident." (that the aircraft is accelerating faster than the treadmill is being pulled.)

WHAT????

If you can't even tell if a plane on the tv is moving forward or not, you shouldn't go around calling other people stupid...

]]> By: Martin http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-68839 Martin Wed, 21 Dec 2011 19:46:16 +0000 http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-68839 I just saw the episode and as the myth was presented on the show, it wasn't done propery.. lets just leave it at that. Ok if the tarp can not hold the plane stationary relative to the ground, that's a fact. But why don't they even mention this in the first place? For me who's not a physics expert, and I guess 95% of all their viewers, the plane was supposed to be stationary and then fly off, that's how they showed the myth at first. And I thought that would be impossible on so many levels.. And when Jamie said that the myth was rediculous (or whatever he said) I couldn't agree more. Then the plane clearly moves forward and takes off. Conclusion: Mythbusters BUSTED!!! I just saw the episode and as the myth was presented on the show, it wasn't done propery.. lets just leave it at that.

Ok if the tarp can not hold the plane stationary relative to the ground, that's a fact. But why don't they even mention this in the first place?

For me who's not a physics expert, and I guess 95% of all their viewers, the plane was supposed to be stationary and then fly off, that's how they showed the myth at first. And I thought that would be impossible on so many levels.. And when Jamie said that the myth was rediculous (or whatever he said) I couldn't agree more.

Then the plane clearly moves forward and takes off.
Conclusion: Mythbusters BUSTED!!!

]]> By: MasterGeek http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-68808 MasterGeek Sun, 18 Dec 2011 07:13:50 +0000 http://nslog.com/2008/01/31/stupid_people_refuting_mythbusters_over_planeconveyor_belt#comment-68808 He's right. I happen to be a mathematician, and technically, the pilot said: 'a lack of the plane's motion' IMPLIES 'the plane will not move and therefore won't take off.' The statement is true. I get what you're saying: the plane DID move, and therefore DID take off, but the statement is still technically true. He's right. I happen to be a mathematician, and technically, the pilot said: 'a lack of the plane's motion' IMPLIES 'the plane will not move and therefore won't take off.' The statement is true. I get what you're saying: the plane DID move, and therefore DID take off, but the statement is still technically true.

]]>