stupid questions

[Olz]

unless the jet was a vtol it would remain on the conveyor belt

its not the rearward pressure from the jets that gives you lift but the differance in air pressue over the wing

No arguments here on that point Mike, the issue for me is whether the plane will move forward or not, remeber the wheels on the plane are only there to prevent friction (they are also quite handy for landing!!), not to provide forward thrust, so in my mind, the conveyor wont move backward stopping the plane from moving, becuase the wheels wont be applying rotation to the conveyor becuase the wheels on the plane arent powered, they only roll because the plane moves forward from the thrust of the engines.

Anyone got a plane, or conveyor so we can test it out? :lol:

 

[Ken Bruty]

The conveyor would only move if the brakes were applied because the jet engines would thrust the aircraft forward and the applied brakes would transfer the thrust onto the conveyor belt and cause that to move instead, however if the brakes aren't applied the wheels would revolve as normal and the aircraft would gain speed because there is no direct thrust onto the conveyor belt, however, if the wheel bearings moving caused any friction, then the conveyor belt could possibly move very slightly, but only if the force of the wheel bearing friction was higher than the force neede to move the conveyor belt. Then as Mike says the air pressure over the wings as speed increases gets to the point where it creates a lift force higher under the wing than the weight of the plane causing it to lift off the ground, all down to the shape of the wing profile. Hence why airspeed is essential to maintain height, otherwise the plane will stall, and drop out of the sky.

 

[Colour Republic]

Have you got a picture of this conveyor belt before I make my mind up?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[jay]

here ya go :8:just need to upsize it

 

[Dan]

Heres one that always produces a few different view points,

Could a plane take off from a conveyor belt, the conveyor belt isnt motorised, it just moves when resistance is applied to it, eg, if you stood on it then walked forward, the conveyor would move backward, like on of those non motorised treadmills.

My view is that the plane would take off as it would still move forward, becuase the wheels on the plane arent what push it forward, the jet engines do, do there wouldnt be any direct pressure applied to the conveyor belt through the wheels, (the brakes on the plane arent on). The wheels are just their to stop the plane scraping along the tarmac. So the jet engines would push the plane forward and it would take off, presuming it could reach the required take off speed.

It would be different for say a car, which gains speed through the wheels applying pressure to the conveyor, which would just move at the same speed as the car, and it would go no where, like a rolling road.

What do you lot think? could the plane take off

Mythbusters did this with a small plane by attaching a huge canvas thing to their "truck" (van :lol and driving away from the plane at the same speed it takes off..... and it worked. A little wobbly, but it took off.

The air pressure created from the engine was still enough to lift the plane. Once it got to speed it lifted slightly, once it got in the air it moved forward with a bit of a wobble but soon enough was taking off normally moving forwards and upwards.

 

[Dan]

right this ones for questions non tile related but things you don't understand most answers accepted ask a question and view answers simple (bit like how the sun works)


question 1

with BP probs and an estimated 19000 barrels a day being lost into ocean whats going in were the oils coming from//////// will sea level drop or will there be an earthquake //// go for it:8:

Non of the above. The sea floor will not drop. And the water in the sea will not fill the oil well due to the oil pressure still being far greater than the pressure of the sea.

The bit that's broken at the bottom of the sea is around (I think I heard it right) 6 miles down I think, and the well they drill oil from is another 3 miles down. So basically there's oil trapped between the solid earth above it and the semi-solid / semi-molten earth below the well.

You can see on the cameras the news stick on every now and again that not only is oil spewing out, there's actually molten lava flowing out a bit too. So it'll probably get filled by that.

Rigs explode a lot more than we hear about. And the greatest oil spill that spilled the most oil with a mexican company drilling in mexico and we're not nowhere near what they spilled out with this one.

What they're trying to do is to cap it off in some way, and then they'll drill it again no doubt. As they've done with all the others. The question this time is should they be allowed to drill so deep when we can't control anything if it goes wrong. As the US are the biggest users of oil in the world. I can almost guarantee that instead of saying NO to drilling so deep in the future, they'll actually say they've come up with some way to deal with the dangers and have cleaned up their act and blah blah blah.

There's even suttle mentions of "we're drilling relief wells now to take the pressure off" which could easily become more drilling rigs. And we're hearing that BP cut corners. Suggesting if they didn't they could have dealt with it. It's all just business at the end of the day and even Obama who came from the stocks and banking industry understands how important it is for america to continue drilling everywhere they can. Which is a shame. They should concentrate on green energy a lot more. If the same investment was put in off-shore related stuff, I'm sure we'd all be powered now by such stuff.

 

[mikethetile]

there is an issue with a safety valve that the us owned maintenance company broke, but apparently bp refused to allow production to cease while the valve was repaired

now in all honesty could you see the same situation arise in the uk, where a company could refuse to repair a safety valve, not these days anyway

production would cease and the valve would be repaired with the company claiming compensation from the maintenance companies insurers to cover its losses

the us are too quick to pass the buck, its their procedures that are at fault