[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 118 KB, 1024x1024, 1670713357940.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15342975 No.15342975 [Reply] [Original]

Well?

>> No.15342977

The wheels aren't what gives it speed

>> No.15342982

>>15342975
Yes, the plane takes off. Did I wake up in 2005?

>> No.15342986

no you moron. the wheels would be running fast. the wings would be stationary in relation to the air.

>> No.15342988

>>15342986
source: be a human with a face that hasn't moved in relation to your feet (easy on roller blades I guess).

>> No.15342989

>>15342975
No. It has no momentum and is generating no lift forces as a result. The engines are not going to be able to lift something that heavy on their own from being stationary. Could use equations to show this but it's very easily understood with a vehicle or other object. If a vehicle is at full acceleration, but stationary, is it experiencing any air displacement? Would you feel wind out the window? No. For the same reason the airplane, specifically one this heavy that could not take off from stationary, cannot take off.

It might be somewhat different given something light enough with a far larger engine, as the engine itself could generate enough force. Definitely not the case for a 747 or most aircraft, however.

>> No.15342991

>>15342975
No moron otherwise it wouldn’t need wings

>> No.15342996
File: 7 KB, 228x221, p2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15342996

>>15342975
Of course it does. That's the only way the fly can move at the same speed as the airplane and stay in the air.

>> No.15343007

better question
could you land and bring a plane to a stop using this treadmill without using brakes

>> No.15343023

>>15343007
you can, but it would put a lot of force on the belt. it would absorb a lot of kinetic energy.

>> No.15343029

>>15343023
PS and it would probably destroy any known material that makes wheels and belts

>> No.15343031

>>15342975
Depends on how you interpret the matching speed statement.

>> No.15343038

>>15343031
Which is about as useful as saying "depends on whether you mean what people usually mean or make something the fuck up". Anyone can make shit up. That isn't cleverness.

>> No.15343042

>>15342975
yes of course it can, the question doesn't mention air speed

>> No.15343077
File: 64 KB, 960x720, lift.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15343077

>>15342975
Only thing that matters is how quickly air moves over the wings, everything else equal

>> No.15343122

>>15343077
>Only thing that matters is how quickly air moves over the wings, everything else equal
Guess how that is ordinarily achieved numbnuts. I swear the human calculator training we call education rots people's fucking brains.
>>Durrr generalized equations don't mandate specific causes for forces or measures
>>Durrr this is worth remarking on
>>Durrr water is wet durrrrrr

>> No.15343127

>>15342975
No, the plane cannot take off. The speed of the conveyor and wheels would rise exponentially till eventually the tyres explode.

>> No.15343130

>>15343127
Wheels don't make planes go.

>> No.15343141

Vickers VC10 grass field operation
https://youtu.be/4ivH7tLiFLY?t=7
Boeing 737 grass field operation
https://youtu.be/4ivH7tLiFLY?t=135

>> No.15343169

>>15343130
No, but as soon as the engines push the plane forward even a tiny amount the belt would try to compensate, this would result in a runaway speed increase of the belt which would almost instantly lead to violent destruction. And after the wheels are destroyed the plane is not going to move anywhere, unless the engine are so strong to be able to take off against grinding wheel stumps.

>> No.15343195 [DELETED] 

>>15342986
What peopels a plane forward?

>> No.15343196

V_wheel=V_treadmill+V_plane AND
V_wheel=V_treadmill

This can only make sense if we assume a non ideal treadmill controller(wheel speed goes towards infinity with any perturbation) or all speeds are 0.
The speed is undefined otherwise.
If the wheels are friction-less and capable of moving at enormous velocities it would simply take off.

>> No.15343243

>>15342986
>>15342989
>>15343077
>>15343122
What propels a plane forward?

>> No.15343245

>>15343243
the engines

>> No.15343247

>>15343243
Acceleration of air

>> No.15343254

>>15342975
The plane can be imagined as a hovering VTOL taking off and you can see why the treadmill doesn't matter.

>> No.15343297

>>15342975
>The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels moving in the opposite direction
So your engines are just going to transfer all the speed to the conveyor belt and nothing else happens

>> No.15343298

>>15343243
>What propels a plane forward?
Can be a lot of things. Ordinarily, the engines. High wind could also do it. Either way, however, you'd experience lift by application of some force.

The image in OP is not specific, but you can easily see why it'd be dishonest to suppose in some ordinary circumstance there's secretly a massive amount of wind generating the lift to allow the engines to safely let the plane take off afterward.
>>15343254
>The plane can be imagined as a hovering VTOL taking off and you can see why the treadmill doesn't matter.
Please explain why we use runways for 747's instead of letting them take off like a VTOL, then, genius. You must be trolling.

>> No.15343334
File: 48 KB, 500x500, 1681231014912574.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15343334

>>15342975
This is easy to solve if you imagine the turbine engines are actually rockets. This means they have to pull in and expel enough air to offset the weight if the plane which is clearly impossible.

The reason planes have wings is because they need the air moving over the wings to generate lift. In this case the only source of lifting force is whatever air is expelled from the turbines and those turbines aren't big enough to displace the weight of the plane.

>> No.15343337

>>15342975
No

>> No.15343356

>>15342975
yeah just pull up you have to be such a dumbass to actually find this challenging

>> No.15343360 [DELETED] 

>>15343298
The point that I'm making is that the conveyor belt nakes no difference, as it's the engines that push it forward. The wheels only keep it above the runway.

>> No.15343362

>>15343141
>URL is FLY
Nice.

>> No.15343363

The absolute state of sci lol

>> No.15343364

>>15343298
The point that I'm making is that the conveyor belt makes no difference, as it's the engines that push it forward. The wheels only keep it above the runway.

>> No.15343368

>>15343360
>The point that I'm making is that the conveyor belt nakes no difference, as it's the engines that push it forward.
>The car moving makes no difference the road doesn't push the car forward it's the engine
Please tell me you're trolling, anon.

>> No.15343371

>>15343368
No I'm not trolling. The engines push against the air, not the ground.

>> No.15343375

>>15343371
>No I'm not trolling. The engines push against the air, not the ground.
While true, you're forgetting something. Please explain what the velocity of the plane is when it is held stationary and how it can be said to have momentum, and thus generate lift.

>> No.15343378

>>15343375
Nothing in the question implies that it's held stationary.

>> No.15343379

>>15342975
Wings only work if air flows over them. In this model only the wheels would spin. The plane wouldn’t go anywhere

>> No.15343389

>>15343378
>Nothing in the question implies that it's held stationary.
If the plane is not allowed to move due to lack of friction. Where is it getting the velocity for momentum?

>> No.15343399

>>15343389
There is nothing about lack of friction in the question either. Jet engines push gainst the air (or their own exhaust) how does the conveyor belt change that?

>> No.15343401

>>15342975
If true aircraft carriers could be build alot shorter

>> No.15343407

>>15343399
>There is nothing about lack of friction in the question either. Jet engines push gainst the air (or their own exhaust) how does the conveyor belt change that?
We are talking about a 747. Not a VTOL, not a massless thing. Yes, jet engines propel the aircraft forward, but it is the lift created by displacement of air that causes it to take off. You only get that displacement, and that lift, if the aircraft is moving fast enough to displace enough air. Or of course if the air is blowing especially hard but that isn't the point.

If the conveyor is moving such that the aircraft is not able to move into the air, move relative to the air, it will not take off without adding other things like the aforementioned high speed air. The jet engines are not powerful enough relative to the weight of a 747 to be able to lift off on its own. Almost like there's a reason, a lot of reasons, why VTOL's and passenger airplanes are different.

>> No.15343410

>>15342975
Of course not. Air speed is 0. A plane can't fly if air speed is 0.

>> No.15343443

>>15343407
>If the conveyor is moving such that the aircraft is not able to move into the air
Conveyor can't do that, it won't stop the plane from moving forwards and then taking off normally.

>> No.15343449

>>15343298
>Please explain why we use runways for 747's instead of letting them take off like a VTOL, then, genius
Because it's more fuel efficient to use wheels to negate the friction between the runway and the plane. Whether wheels or VTOL though they serve the same purpose

>> No.15343468

It depends on which assumptions are made. If we assume all normal physics are upheld the plane would probably be able to take off, since it has much less inertia than the several kilometer long belt, so the assumption of the belt being able to move at the same velocity as the wheels is impossible unless we use magical materials and power train for the belt. If we magically lock the speed of the belt to the wheels then the plane wouldn't go anywhere as the belt would accelerate until the force of friction from the wheels is equal to the thrust created by the engines.

>> No.15343482

It's an unworldly quesiton
A) Conveyor belt exactly matches the speed of the wheels
B) Engines pushes air so the wheels move
>therefore
C) Engines pushes the conveoyr belt
D) All the thrust goes directly to the conveyor belt
E) Conveyor belt = Plane

>> No.15343515

>>15343443
>Conveyor can't do that, it won't stop the plane from moving forwards and then taking off normally.
It is matching the exact speed of the wheels that would ordinarily be transferring the force from the engines along the ground. So, yes, it does do that. All that energy is going directly to the conveyor.
>>15343449
>Because it's more fuel efficient
The engine of a 747 literally cannot generate enough lift in normal Earth conditions. Go fucking look it up if you're so smart.

>> No.15343518

>>15343468
>It depends on which assumptions are made.
That's true of literally any/every thought experiment or any statement made in any way in any language ever.

>> No.15343529

>>15343518
Based on discussions ITT it isn't obvious

>> No.15343550

>>15343529
>Based on discussions ITT it isn't obvious
It isn't that it isn't obvious, or wouldn't be if people would read and understand hypotheticals as presented instead of "trying to be clever" when they're not. it's that people do not take examples in the same abstract manner in which they're presented. By definition of the question it requires a conveyor capable of doing what was described. The only way in which it is not "obvious" is if people are not capable of realizing what the hypothetical is, from the outset, by its already assuming things that could not occur.

It would be like engaging with newtonian equations pertaining to masses and gravity, but then going "durrr but air resistance" as if that's somehow relevant.

>> No.15343552

>>15343515
>The engine of a 747 literally cannot generate enough lift in normal Earth conditions. Go fucking look it up if you're so smart.
You're completely missing the point, you dipshit. I'm not even remotely trying to claim a VTOL 747 is possible.

>> No.15343570

>>15343552
>You're completely missing the point, you dipshit. I'm not even remotely trying to claim a VTOL 747 is possible.
I'm not. You, however, genuinely are. If you don't think the 747 engine can work like a VTOL, then you need to answer the following question: How do you think you're getting momentum without velocity?
Are you going to feel the wind in your face when you gun your car if it's on blocks?

>> No.15343596

>>15343515
>wheels that would ordinarily be transferring the force from the engines along the ground
Engines don't transfer energy to the ground it's not a car and even if that was what planes did, conveyor still wouldn't stop it from lifting off because conveyors can't do that, it won't stop the plane from moving forwards and then taking off normally. "Matching the speed" does absolutely nothing to stop the plane from moving forwards"

>> No.15343628

>>15343596
>Engines don't transfer energy to the ground
Please explain how you get velocity in your idea of reality in this situation.

You're refusing to engage with the question and I'm increasingly certain it's trolling. Or you are really, sadly, that dumb. Again, "how do you think you're getting momentum?" Where is your velocity coming from?

>> No.15343668

>>15343570
Whatever you say man lmao

>> No.15343678

>>15342975
No.

>> No.15343767

>>15343038
Except here is does, fucktard. You have been filtered by Physics 101.

>> No.15343778

>>15343767
It's the physics version of ambiguous meme math problems

>> No.15343779

>>15342975
The wheels would be spinning very fast (too fast?) but yes it would take off.

Think of it like two things contributing to the spinning of the wheels, the conveyor belt and the jet thrust. Hopefully the wheels can withstand it.

>> No.15343782

>>15343169
Per the picture there is no try, the speeds exactly match.

>> No.15343792

>>15343169
I think they're assuming magic frictionless wheels that can take anything. In that case, the plane will take off with no problem.

>> No.15343807

I'm a pilot. Yes, it would take off.

>> No.15343808

>>15343401
The conveyor would not cause a longer take-off. The plane would need the same length of runway as it would normally. The only difference would be that the wheels are spinning extremely fast.

>> No.15343811

>>15343628
>Please explain how you get velocity in your idea of reality in this situation.
The engines push the plane forward directly. It doesn't go through the wheels.

How so you think the engines still work when the plane is no longer touching ground?

>> No.15343812

>>15343778
Eh, kind of but not really. It definitely can be ambiguous but there's a right way and a wrong way to approach hypotheticals. Usually, the right way is to accept the premises evident "for sake of argument". In the case of ambiguous math memes it's just retardation.
>>15343779
Case in point. If you're assuming a conveyor that can it stands to reason you'd assume all else being equal everything else is similarly immutable. The exception ought be the engine else you get infinite thrust from additional magical properties.
>>15343792
Given I draw the line at magic engines you can easily figure that out given the maximum thrust of the engines. Just looking up an example from PW4062 turbofans altogether producing a maximum thrust of 275 kN, once at maximum I'm sure you could jerk the plane upward just enough to crash it in a fireball.

So whether you mean "takeoff" as in successfully or not determines if that instantaneous moment of force getting it off the ground to any degree would be "yes" or not. I'm going to stick with "no" since the instant force you might achieve won't get you enough velocity, fast enough, to do anything but crash.
>>15343778
Okay so you're kind of right about the ambiguous math thing anyway. Case in point.

>> No.15343816

>>15343678
Yes.

>> No.15343817

>>15343792
Even so, that would require the wheels to spin at infinite speed, which does not mean anything.

>> No.15343822

>>15343811
>How so you think the engines still work when the plane is no longer touching ground?
Fluid dynamics and similar forces because you have momentum, hence lift, and so on. Without velocity you don't have lift, and the conveyor is robbing the airplane of its velocity generated by the engines.

It's a really straightforward question. How are you getting velocity if the conveyor is stealing it?

>> No.15343826

>>15343812
No magical engines necessary. Assuming no friction for the wheels, there would be the same thrust required from the engines to take off.

>> No.15343827

>>15343812
I should clarify, that's FOUR engines for a thrust of 275 kN in case it wasn't obvious given how many engines the airplane has.

>> No.15343829

>>15343826
>No magical engines necessary. Assuming no friction for the wheels, there would be the same thrust required from the engines to take off.
...Assuming no friction. Which, again, leads you to equally assume magical frictionless engines. You're just changing the assumptions such that it would result in takeoff no matter what.

>> No.15343833

>>15343817
It is a weird thing to say that the conveyor would "match" the speed of the wheels, because the only thing making the wheels turn other than the conveyor is the plane. So I guess it means that whatever contribution to the speed of the wheels the plane makes, that speed is added to that of the conveyor. So it wouldn't be infinite, just twice as fast as the plane would normally make the wheels spin.

>> No.15343836

>>15342975
it's a VTOL aircraft, so who cares?

>> No.15343843

>>15343829
I'm assuming frictionless wheels, because I don't think actual airliner wheels can handle it, but let's say they are just very robust wheels with typical friction. the plane still takes off.

>> No.15343853

>>15343822
You're assuming the wheels have friction, without any friction in both the wheels and belt, and if we ignore relativity then the plane would take off but the wheels and conveyor would instantly move at infinite velocity.
>>15343833
Assuming the wheels have friction, the conveyor would accelerate instantly when the engines start outputting thrust and the plane wants to roll. It would never actually move since the velocity of the conveyor would instantly reach the point where friction from the wheels cancels the thrust of the engines.

>> No.15343876

>>15343822
>It's a really straightforward question. How are you getting velocity if the conveyor is stealing it?
How is the conveyor stealing it? The engines don't need the conveyor belt, or the ground to do so. They work even when the plane is up in the air.

>> No.15343879

>>15343792
Worth pointing out that I have not been assuming that. Which is why I kept explaining what I have with respect to velocity, given the conveyor has some function in robbing the energy the engines produce and that would require friction.

If you assume no fruction at all, then yes, it could take off.
>>15343843
Uh, no. That's the whole point. As the other anon >>15343853 also notes. Lift is generated by air and primarily momentum of the mass moving into that air displacing it. You need to consider the total forces required to overcome gravity. The forces in total must exceed the downward force of gravity or you will fall. The engines, by themselves, only produce 2.77m/s2 given the weight of a 747 and assumed thrust of the engines. They could not get you off the ground by themselves.

So the only thing that would is the resulting force caused by momentum, again something you'll find in fluid dynamics equations, and those fundamentally require velocity. That velocity, in the case of a conveyor robbing it from the thrust generated, would be zero.

>> No.15343881

>>15343515
>The engine of a 747 literally cannot generate enough lift in normal Earth conditions. Go fucking look it up if you're so smart.
Tornado in your path

>> No.15343884

>>15343876
>How is the conveyor stealing it? The engines don't need the conveyor belt, or the ground to do so.
Perhaps it would help you to realize it isn't so much stealing the thrust from the engine inasmuch as preventing accumulating forces from displacement caused by its momentum. No momentum, no displacement, no lift.
>They work even when the plane is up in the air.
No shit? Notice how you have velocity in the air?

>> No.15343885

>>15343254
>Not converting all our passenger planes to passenger plane-scale tiltrotor craft
sadge

>> No.15343903

>>15343876
If the wheels don't explode, the friction in the wheel bearings will allow the backwards moving conveyor to transmit backwards force to the plane such to cancel out the engines thrust. If there is no friction, then the conveyor will go to infinite speed which is logically impossible.

>> No.15343907

>>15343903
Isn't an issue of logical impossibility, it is simply the fact you are not displacing air as a result no matter that it would inevitably accelerate to infinity.

>> No.15343911

>>15343884
>preventing accumulating forces from displacement caused by its momentum.
I'm not sure that you really know what these words mean.
>No shit? Notice how you have velocity in the air?
Notice how in the air there is no runway to push against?

>> No.15343919

How much force can a 747 engine emit?

>> No.15343921

>>15343907
Why would the plane not move if there was no friction between it's wheels and the conveyor?

>> No.15343925

>>15343911
Yeah, okay, you're trolling.
>Durrr car on a conveyor will break your arm if you touch it
This is the level you're at.

>> No.15343931

>>15343921
>Why would the plane not move if there was no friction between it's wheels and the conveyor?
I'm assuming friction. Already said if you assume no friction it will move, and therefore be able to take off. By definition under that assumption it would not, in fact, be meaningfully "touching" the ground as we ordinarily think of it so nothing the conveyor does would matter.

That is also why assuming no friction is not the correct interpretation, else the conveyor may as well not be in the hypothetical at all. If you're free to just randomly erase factors like that you might as well just assume the engines are magical antigravity machines and the plane has no weight.

>> No.15343937

>>15343884
The question tricks you into thinking the motion gets cancelled out, and you're getting hung up on that assumption. The plane effectively isn't connected to the conveyor belt.

>> No.15343944

>>15343937
I'm not being tricked. I'm limiting the number of ad hoc assumptions altering what's presented. >>15343931
I've repeatedly demonstrated correct inferences under different assumptions. To suggest I am being "tricked" would assume I could not reason from those different assumptions.

>> No.15343967

>>15343944
It says "the conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels", not "the conveyor belt is designed to speed up enough to impart a matching amount of force via the wheels as the engines produce".

>> No.15343981

The engine of the plane would cause the wheels to skim over the conveyor belt and it would end in a catastrophe or climb the air, there's really no way of telling how it would go.

>> No.15343984

>>15343925
No, I'm not trolling, you fail at physics.
Notice how the engine in a car turns the wheels, which push against the road.
A car will not be able to move on the conveyor belt.
An airplane is different, because the engines push it forward directly. No involvement of the wheels, the runway, or the conveyor belt.
An airplane on the conveyor belt will start moving like usual.

>> No.15343992

So youre telling me we can completely replace 10,000 foot runways with 3 large treadmills under each set of main tires? Wow! Amazing!

You people are all fucking idiots.

>> No.15344001

>>15343992
Did somebody say this?

>> No.15344009

>>15343967
Yes, but it will naturally do that since it's a positive feedback loop.
The statement means that ANY difference in velocity between the wheels and the belt will cause it to instantaneously correct. As soon as the engines produce any thrust and the plane rolls an infinitesimal amount, it would cause a feedback loop that accelerates the wheels until friction cancels out all thrust from the engines.
>>15343992
The belt is as long and wide as a runway
>>15343984
Only if the wheels have no friction forces affecting them, the question only implies the conveyor belt has magical properties.

>> No.15344017

>>15344009
>friction cancels out all thrust from the engines.
That wouldn't happen, the engine would continue to push it forward and it would skim across the conveyor belt.

>> No.15344023

>>15344001
yeah, they said in 2005. this thread is nearly all gpt replies from archived threads

>> No.15344026

>>15344009
It doesnt matter how long it is. The wheels are matched by the treadmill.

>> No.15344030

We're still having this argument? Mythbusters put an airplane on a treadmill fifteen years ago

>> No.15344033

>>15344026
The wheels are not what is moving the plane, FFS!

>> No.15344034

>>15344017
So the engine which is a non ideal system can overcome corrections from an ideal system?
Airplane wheels would probably explode at anywhere near the velocities where they encounter the same friction force as the engines' produce thrust, so the question is le dumb
>>15344030
I bet they didn't have an ideal treadmill

>> No.15344049

>>15344009
>The statement means that ANY difference in velocity between the wheels and the belt will cause it to instantaneously correct.
It doesn't though? It just says "conveyor belt speed = wheel speed". This is what I mean about being tripped up, you're picturing it as "the conveyor moves to cancel out any motion".

>> No.15344055

In any case, wouldn't the wings hit the supports of the treadmill if the plane somehow did take off? Looks like a lose lose scenario

>> No.15344056

>>15342975
It can't. The runway is way too short.

>> No.15344057

>>15343967
>It says "the conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels", not "the conveyor belt is designed to speed up enough to impart a matching amount of force via the wheels as the engines produce".
In reality, not altering assumptions about reality, they are the same thing specifically in this sort of case. Thrust producing velocity is going to be transferred to the wheels, and the conveyor is going to take that energy resulting in a stationary object. You can see the exact same effect on a very simple model involving a wheel rotating on a conveyor with the same velocity. That wheel remains stationary even though it is turning, and regardless of its source of thrust, so long as we're not talking about bouncing or other instabilities causing it to fly off.
>>15343984
>No, I'm not trolling, you fail at physics.
I'm not. You're just assuming I am and retroactively making shit up to confirm that assumption.
>A car will not be able to move on the conveyor belt.
It would not move regardless of which kind of wheel it has or the source of thrust. Again, assuming friction and otherwise normal assumptions about reality. This is a 747 we're talking about. Details such as the thrust, its weight, and acceleration, matter.
>An airplane is different, because the engines push it forward directly.
No, it isn't. Attach a similarly scaled engine that won't cause a car to leave the ground on its own either. Make the wheels the same. Why is the car suddenly escaping the treadmill? Give the car equivalent weight and thrust for the same acceleration.
>>15344009
Yeaaah I can only repeat "Yes it can take off assuming no friction" so many times before it gets boring.
>>15344030
They did, and that is also why I pointed out a VTOL can nonetheless take off. Any engine which could displace enough air to cause the object to leave the ground would thus be able to, well, leave the ground.

>> No.15344059

>>15344034
>here's a a bunch of small-scale examples of this working, plus someone did it with an actual plane and pilot and it worked every time
>>they must have cheated somehow

>> No.15344063

>>15344049
I don't think you realize that when I say "not altering assumptions about reality" the only thing constant I am holding here is that the conveyor can do what it says.

The weight of the plane and the thrust of its engine, unlike a smaller or lighter plane or given some other kind of conveyor, or an engine capable of far more thrust, won't displace enough air to get it to bounce off the conveyor like a lighter smaller one would.
Basically >>15344034
>I bet they didn't have an ideal treadmill
we're talking about an ideal treadmill here, and a 747 given the weight and thrust involved.

>> No.15344065

>>15344034
The wheels are not being rotated by an engine, it's the jets that push it. The wheels are just on an axis. It would realistically steer to one side and crash but for the sake of the argument it's possible it could get into the air.

>> No.15344069

>>15343967
which is funny, because relatively speaking, solid ground is "matching the speed" of the wheels at all times

>> No.15344073

>>15344057
>>15344063
Your infinitely powerful conveyor belt that can accelerate fast enough to match the thrust produced by jet engines is just as much of an unrealistic assumption as frictionless wheels. You might as well redefine the question to a plane encase in concrete in that case. You're not settling on a more correct answer, you're just picking a different thing to ignore.

>> No.15344081

>>15344073
>You're not settling on a more correct answer, you're just picking a different thing to ignore.
I am picking the thing that makes the conveyor relevant to keep in the example in the first place. Else you can just assume no friction and the conveyor may as well not be there except to troll people. Yes, that is entirely possible as a motive, but that doesn't change the question even if it's intended to be silly.

Either way you appear to nonetheless get my point regardless of how you feel about my reason for getting to that point.

>> No.15344085

>>15344049
You're forgetting one factor, if the plane actually begins rolling, the wheels are necessarily moving faster than the belt, thus making the belt accelerate more, which would make the wheels go faster and so on.
>>15344059
On a real conveyor with a real plane it would work every time, there is a reason. An ideal conveyor is the entire problem with this question, it causes some odd behavior.
>>15344065
I know but I'll refer to the first response in this post
>>15344069
Let's keep reference planes out of this, otherwise there will be a general meltdown
>>15344073
Read the question in the OP pic
>the conveyor belt is designed to EXACTLY match the speed of the wheels, moving in the other direction.
That's the entire premise of the problem, you can say that it won't exactly match the speed and that's fine by me but that statement requires an ideal conveyor belt to be true, unless you can enlighten me otherwise.

>> No.15344087

>>15344049
>"conveyor belt speed = wheel speed"
Again, doesn't the relative speed of solid ground always match the speed of moving wheels? I guess they mean the speed of the conveyor relative to a stationary observer. If that's the case, the conveyor will simply cause the wheels to spin twice as fast as they normally would as the plane accelerates.

>> No.15344094
File: 19 KB, 306x306, pepe_stares_in_disbelief.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15344094

>>15342975
Unless air flows over the wings there will be NO lift. You can literally stand off the treadmill and hold the wing while you stand perfectly still.
No airflow over the wings means NO lift.

>> No.15344105

>>15344087
One issue, if the plane actually rolls forwards on the belt, the wheels are moving faster than the belt.

>> No.15344108

>>15343515
>It is matching the exact speed of the wheels that would ordinarily be transferring the force from the engines along the ground
lmao

>> No.15344111

>>15344085
Glad to see I'm not alone in this insanity in any event given my explanations so far. The least assumption is definitely that "ideal conveyor" and that is also where people get completely fucked up and confused. At least now I can identify where the problem is, and why people might think I am misunderstanding things I am not.

In any case, and in general,
Yes, different answers will result if you change variables. A lighter plane, a non-ideal conveyor, removing friction, engines capable of more thrust, and so on and so forth. The fact is we're talking about a plane so heavy that its acceleration is insufficient to cause it to lose contact with the ground.

No, I am not "misunderstanding" anything. It would appear the primary issue is people think being able to derive different conclusions from differences in variables somehow means you don't understand how any of the variables work... when by definition that is the ONLY sense in which you could be said to really understand how those variables work.

Case in point with the mythbusters example I would definitely answer "absolutely their plane will take off".

>> No.15344115

I can't tell if everyone ITT is stupid or just trolling
But I guess that's true IRL too.

>> No.15344120

>>15343879
Uh yes. I don't think typical friction will be enough to stop the plane from taking off. I just thought it would make the wheels burn up or something. There is nothing stopping the plane from taking off just because it's on a conveyor belt.
>They could not get you off the ground by themselves.
>That velocity, in the case of a conveyor robbing it from the thrust generated, would be zero.
The conveyor belt is not preventing the engines from pushing the plane forward.

>> No.15344132

>>15344057
Imagine you push a shopping cart. The cart us always on the treadmill.
Case one: you walk on the treadmill as you push the cart.
Case two: you walk next to the treadmil as you push the cart.

>> No.15344134

>>15344105
That's why the phrasing of "matches the speed" is bad. That could mean different things. I assume they mean that if the wheels are moving one direction at X mph relative to a stationary observer, the conveyor is moving the opposite direction at X mph. In that case, it would simply double the normal rotation speed of the wheels.

>> No.15344142

>>15342975
it all comes down to whether the wheels are assumed to roll with or without sliding. if sliding is assumed not to occur, the jet engines just turn the belt. if sliding is possible, then it becomes a question of whether the coefficient of friction is sufficient to prevent too much sliding. the plane will take off in that case only if the resulting translational velocity is high enough to generate the necessary lift.

>> No.15344169

>>15344081
The thing you're picking means the conveyor belt might as well be concrete, the thing other people are picking means the wheels might as well be hover pods. Either way you argue something out of the situation, it's entirely arbitrary that you want to make the conveyor belt ideal but not the wheels.

>> No.15344172

>>15344081
>I am picking the thing that makes the conveyor relevant to keep in the example in the first place.
Yeah, that's the joke. It's irrelevant information in this context, but you've fixated on it.

>> No.15344174

>>15342975
if you can't answer this and you are over 12 years old, you should kys

>> No.15344179

>>15344120
>Uh yes. I don't think typical friction will be enough to stop the plane from taking off
Okay, sure, fair enough. But I now realize what the real problem was in any case, and it was in not also communicating the consequences of what is meant by "ideal conveyor". I didn't realize I had to. That's my bad.

See, coefficient of friction is determined by empirical measurement. The fricition sufficient to overcome other forces involved here, preventing the wheels from leaving the ground by definition for our "ideal" conveyor absent sufficient thrust to independently escape gravity, is what is therefore canceling out movement.

I did not realize until now people would not make that necessary leap simply from being told "assume an ideal conveyor" no matter how it is clarified what that ideal actually means. Given how friction is calculated, or could be in the abstract to fit the "ideal conveyor", that would require any thrust be robbed and the momentum reduced to zero. That is, unless the thrust was such that it could independently overcome gravity.
>>15344172
>Yeah, that's the joke. It's irrelevant information in this context, but you've fixated on it.
Only because there is, in fact, a possible answer that keeps it relevant. You're quoting me from a post where I am explicitly pointing out it is a troll otherwise. I also clearly and repeatedly said in reality it would lift off or ignoring the treadmill entirely it would. This is not some issue of "my not getting" something, this is an issue of nobody understanding what I'm talking about. Which is partly my fault I now realize.

>> No.15344181

>>15343826
>Assuming no friction for the wheels

Did someone get filtered by Physics 1? You cant have rolling wheels without friction

>> No.15344184

>>15344169
The manner in which the conveyor and the wheels end up ideal are opposite. i.e. ideal friction versus ideal hover pods. As the latter renders the conveyor obsolete it is not arbitrary if you want the least number of assumptions.

All I've done is demonstrate there is, given the least number of assumptions, an actual answer. It just isn't the one people are going to like.

>> No.15344185

>>15344120
The planes wheel bearings have some amount of friction. Once the belt reaches a certain speed, this friction will cancel out the engine thrust.

>> No.15344186

>>15344181
No friction for the wheels (the things that are attached to the axles), not the tires.

>> No.15344195

>>15344185
The belt can only cause the wheels to turn twice as fast as they normally would. I don't think that's enough friction to prevent the plane from taking off. The amount of friction that could cancel out engine thrust would most likely melt the wheels.

>> No.15344199

>>15344195
>The amount of friction that could cancel out engine thrust would most likely melt the wheels.
While true, given what I just pointed out what "ideal conveyor" necessarily implies here >>15344179, that also is a fail condition for takeoff notwithstanding. Just saying.

>> No.15344205
File: 127 KB, 470x357, Lift.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15344205

>> No.15344206

An answer from a different angle. Wouldn't it be possible that while the belt accelerates to a velocity where friction in the wheels cancels engine thrust, the runway sized belt is moving so fast that air is accelerated under the wings to a velocity high enough to cause the plane to hover?

>> No.15344210

>>15344206
That, good sir, certainly would be possible as well if we further assumed ideal wheels. Though in such a condition its acceleration toward infinity or generating that wind wouldn't be relevant either as it'd take off long before then anyway.

In any case, yes, certainly, that could happen if you fucked with the variables more.

>> No.15344212

Not gonna read all this retard rambling in the thread.
If the plane is to move forward and gain airspeed its wheels would have to by definition be spinning faster than the treadmill.
Therefore in an idealised scenario where the belt exactly matches the speed of the wheels, throttling up the engines would result in the wheels and treadmill speeding up to ridiculous velocities really quickly until either engine thrust is balanced by wheel friction or the wheels explode.
The plane would not move at all

>> No.15344213

>>15344184
Your answer is what everyone's first instinct is, that's the whole point. You haven't discovered some grand answer, you're just getting stuck on the trick. Have you ever heard the joke:
>If a plane crashes on the border between Montana and Wyoming, where do they bury the survivors?

>> No.15344214

>>15344210
I'm not even talking about fucking with the variables more, the velocity at which the wheels fail is likely to be several times takeoff velocity. A 2000x50m band moving at several hundred knots could move enough air over the wings to generate sufficient lift.

>> No.15344218

>>15344213
>Your answer is what everyone's first instinct is, that's the whole point.
I'm not going on first instinct. I'm going on "what the answer is assuming conditions such that the treadmill would actually be relevant". That is a far, far removed sequence of reasoning from first instinct.

>> No.15344222

>>15344195
Where are you getting this twice as fast? The conveyor belt speed always matches the wheel speed. Any time the plane is moving forward at all there is an imbalance which the conveyor instantly corrects, if the plane continued to move forward this would cause the conveyor speed to go to infinity.

>> No.15344223

>>15344094
Right, but lift isn't required for the plane to move forward

>> No.15344231

>>15343833
The post responded to was talking about assuming frictionless wheels.
In that case wheel velocity would become infinite instantly.

>> No.15344235

>>15344214
>A 2000x50m band moving at several hundred knots could move enough air over the wings to generate sufficient lift.
I'd have to crunch those numbers somehow and I lack the desire to install enough packages and figure out how to make them work together to give you anything close to a good answer. I don't think there's a simple way to work out that equation but maybe there is. Either way I don't care to right now.

My guess would be the heat caused by the conveyor itself would create sufficient updraft long before the conveyor "pulling" the air would matter. However, that assumes a conveyor accelerating to infinity, which was not your original question.
>Wouldn't it be possible that while the belt accelerates to a velocity where friction in the wheels cancels engine thrust, the runway sized belt is moving so fast that air is accelerated under the wings to a velocity high enough to cause the plane to hover?
In the original scenario I was talking about, and what you replied to, and without changing any variables, the answer is going to be "no". We'd need to change other assumptions such as the wheels being capable of withstanding acceleration to infinity, in which case I just assume heat would do the trick... "eventually".

>> No.15344244

>>15344218
You're justifying your first instinct with an enormous amount of post-hoc reasoning, indeed. If you want to be rigorous a far more interesting question would be to actually investigate the operating limits of jet plane wheels and mile long high speed conveyor belts to see which would fail first.

>> No.15344257

>>15344222
They do not specify, but I am assuming that when they say "matches the speed" they mean the "ground speed" relative to a stationary observer. They do not mean the rotation speed. If that's the case, then the wheels would simply rotate twice as fast as they normally would on solid ground.

>> No.15344258

>>15344222
Twice as fast comes from assuming "wheel speed" is the speed of the axle and therefore the entire plane moving relative to the stationary observer. In that case the wheel surface speed would be just twice regular speed at takeoff.
When you talk about treadmills and "exactly match the speed of the wheels"
it's obvious that is not what is meant.
What is meant is exactly matching surface speed of the wheel.

>> No.15344269

>>15344244
>You're justifying your first instinct
No, as my first instinct was the conveyor is irrelevant because it's a troll post and in reality airplanes would take off barring component failures due to other factors pertaining to incomplete takeoff and bouncing etc. But you're free to make up whatever fantasy you want if it helps you feel smug I guess. Everyone must think the same so you can easily put them in your boxes.
> If you want to be rigorous a far more interesting question would be to actually investigate the operating limits of jet plane wheels and mile long high speed conveyor belts to see which would fail first.
The conveyor would break first given current material limitations and the torque required to keep it at sufficient speed. That is not an interesting question at all and if you think it was feel free to end up coming to the same conclusion by "doing it rigorously".

No clue why you feel the need to pound your chest when you're anonymous but it is pretty funny to watch.

>> No.15344275

>>15344257
If that's your actual interpretation of the statement in OP then you have autism.

>> No.15344284

>>15344275
Kind of the opposite as he's engaging with the necessary consequences of the hypothetical to better model the end result.
>>15344257
Good job realizing that needed mentioning, I sadly did not realize that.

>> No.15344308

>>15344284
>engaging with the necessary consequences of the hypothetical
You're retarded. Matching the speed of the wheels exists its called a dynanometer or maybe driving an rc car on a treadmill.
That is obviously the sort of speed matching referred to.
Not the belt matching the speed of the object over ground that's just a hugely illiterate interpretation of that statement.

>> No.15344309

>>15344269
You're the one preening about your enormous intellect for over analysing a joke.

>> No.15344320
File: 275 KB, 837x744, Pepe_Voice_Of_Reason.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15344320

>>15344223
>lift isn't required for the plane to move forward

It said "take off" which means fly.
No air flow over wing means no lift.
Like I said, you can stand off the treadmill and hold the wing while you stand perfectly still.
There is NO airflow over the wing, therefore NO lift.

>> No.15344321

>>15344309
>You're the one preening about your enormous intellect for over analysing a joke.
Just because that's why you do things doesn't mean that's why others do things. Quite a few others made the same inferences, so it wouldn't serve that purpose in any case.
>>15344308
Yes I know what a dynanometer is. However, funnily enough, the whole reason for my not "being stupid" and assuming the wheels function identical to the engine driving the wheels of a car is exactly why the dynanometer is not relevant in the first place. Nor would be for the ideal conveyor to keep the conveyor relevant. So >>15344257 is quite right in his observation and necessary consequences that result from keeping said conveyor relevant.

>> No.15344330

>>15344321
Correction, dynamometer*. Fuckin made the same goddamn typo.

>> No.15344349

>>15344321
>Quite a few others made the same inferences
Literally everyone works the same things out. You've planted a flag at step B and you think you're out ahead while the rest of the crowd has already walked to step H.

>> No.15344350

>>15344349
cool story bro but where was I supposed to give a shit?

>> No.15344411

>>15343127
>>15343169
Correct
>>15343363
At least this is a mildly interesting problem to debate. Granted, this image gets posted every few weeks, but it beats the threads where people post a bunch of retarded shit and then add "scientifically speaking" to the end.

>> No.15344412

>>15344411
>At least this is a mildly interesting problem to debate. Granted, this image gets posted every few weeks, but it beats the threads where people post a bunch of retarded shit and then add "scientifically speaking" to the end.
yep

>> No.15344418

>>15344411
>At least this is a mildly interesting problem to debate.
I meant the posts tho. The pic itself is common here and in undergrad's introductory physics.
Better than the offtopic and babble spammed in sci. At least isn't /x/.

>> No.15344435

>>15344320
But there will be lift because the plane will move forward when the engines provide thrust. The poor wheels will be spun faster than they normally would, but the plane will move forward down the conveyor belt and take off.

>> No.15344512

>>15342975
If I were to be standing next to the plane and see it move away from me like normal then yes. If this conveyer belt is spinning so fast the make the plane stationary relative to me, then no. The plane still needs an AIRspeed of 200km/hr or whatever to get enough lift to fly, the conveyor and wheel speed is irrelevant.

>> No.15344547

Literally EVERYONE IS IGNORING that their are TWO (2) machines in this picture. One is the plane, but the other is… THE TREADMILL! And it’s GENERATING a ton of AIR current by moving so fast! As the treads move, they leave a vacuum of air proportional to their speed, so surrounding air rushes in to to fill the space and this creates the air pressure under the wings. It would be OBVIOUS to anyone that from the Airplane’s localalitt of physics that from its perspective nothing is different from a regular tarmat.

>> No.15344553

>>15344547
>Literally EVERYONE IS IGNORING
>thing people mentioned and discussed
ok

>> No.15344565

>>15344435
>the plane will move forward when the engines provide thrust
the image says the plane is sitting on the runway and so the engines are not turned on

>> No.15344567
File: 3.97 MB, 576x1024, 1681216563063509.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15344567

>>15342975
It is a troll question that assumes the plane's engine connects to its wheels.
The jet engines push air back and both the plane and its wheels gain speed. If the belt then accelerates against the plane's motion only by kinetic friction can the belt speed more than its opposite effect on the wheels:
Ff = u Fn
Kinetic friction is a constant until the plane starts to generate lift, then the friction only decreases as Fn decreases. Kinetic friction between wheels and belt stops when they match speed after the belt's reactive overacceleration. However kinetic friction as a force between wheels and plane, being the only force against its movement, remains the same or less no matter how fast the belt or wheels run.

>> No.15344574

>>15344567
>webm
bro...

>> No.15344606
File: 2.77 MB, 256x320, stupid.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15344606

>>15344567

webm: These people still play peek-a-boo and scream with excitement every time their eyes are uncovered and someone is there.

>> No.15344632

>>15344565
It can sit on the runway while the engines are running.

>> No.15344687

>>15344632
wrong. either the engines are running and it can't take off, or they aren't running. if it could take off and the engines were running it would be flying and not sitting. the image shows the engines not running and says the plane is sitting so it is obvious the engines are not running

>> No.15344733

>>15342975
Thrust without lift = no elevation gain.

>> No.15344740

>>15342975
The REAL QUESTION is if a race car were on a treadmill on the back of a semi, and doing 200MPH on the treadmill on the back of the truck doing 65 MPH, would the race car get a speeding ticket in a 65 MPH zone?

>> No.15345137

>>15343243
> What propels a plane forward?
Irrelevant here; a plane can move forward without wever taking off. Question you should be asking is what propels it upwards - in this case the air resistance from the underside of the wing.

>> No.15345145

>>15345137
No, that is obvious. The point of contention is if it begins moving forward or not. If you think that it isn't, explain how.

>> No.15345541

>>15343243
Displacement of the air through the turbine

>> No.15345545

>>15344740
Don't think we have any lawyers lurking

>> No.15346728

>>15342975
kill everyone in this thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY

>> No.15346775

>>15346728
> The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels
Your video is irrelevant to this thread.

>> No.15346866

>>15342975
plane force os mass lifts plane in motion...

so nope, also just farted.

>> No.15346870

>>15345545
how about cops? most cops would ticket anything.

>> No.15347249

>>15342975
Depends on whether or not the wheels are allowed to slip and if friction between the wheel and the axel exerts a backwards force on the plane.
But I'm going to say that practically, yes, it takes off. I strongly doubt that in a realistic scenario the axel-wheel friction can keep up with the force generated by the engines.

Imagine that instead of wheels, the plane has perfectly frictionless skids. Then it doesn't matter at all how fast the conveyor moves, it has no effect on the plane. The plane pushes itself against the air and gains forward speed relative to that air until the lift on the wings is enough to carry the plane.
Next imagine the skids have an infinite friction coefficient, and instead of matching the wheel speed, the conveyor matches the force of the engines. The net force on the plane is always zero, it never gains speed relative to the air, and never achieves lift.

Now, imagine the plane has wheels with an infinite friction coefficient against the belt, but perfect 0 friction against the axel. Before even turning on the jet engine, consider what would happen if you started moving the belt. The plane would actually stay perfectly in place as the wheels and belt moved under it, for any arbitrary speed. This is functionally identical to the frictionless skids example, so the plane will be able to push off the air, gain velocity relative to the conveyor (which is completely independent of the belt speed) and eventually achieve lift.

It is conceivable though that if the axel-wheel friction sufficiently scales up with wheel speed, then the force of the engines gives diminishing returns on increasing the plane speed, and this could approach an equilibrium below what's needed for lift.

>> No.15347292

>>15343884
>accumulating forces
Forces don't accumulate. Forces don't even really exist, they're just abstractions to teach you physics. The plane would fly by the way; this was already tried IRL.

>> No.15347303

>>15342975
The plane takes off by applying force to the air, not the ground, though? Otherwise it could only ever hop.

Pic's like saying "an airborne plane can't go accelerate or ascend because it has no ground to push off." It's nonsense, it's not a gliding car. "Match the speed" part is total red herring. That conveyor belt might as well be moving the opposite direction at the speed of sound, or faster, and the plane could still takeoff just fine if the wheels are free to turn.

>> No.15347343

>>15347303
You're telling me a regular plane can just take off if it stays in one spot but the wheels are free to turn? Bullshit, it needs that airtime to generate enough thrust to stay in the air. Otherwise it'll just be a vertical take-off which commercial planes cant do.

>> No.15347345

>>15347292
>I'm retarded and don't read the thread before I comment

>> No.15347347

>>15347343
by 'generate enough thrust' I mean to accelerate enough to extend its trajectory to a reasonable distance.

>> No.15347349

I won't. This is by definition.

>> No.15347355

>>15347343
NTA. You're on the retard end of the "plane doesn't take off". Most of us were just having fun trying to come up with a justification that would keep the conveyor relevant, hence "ideal conveyor" which necessarily assumes friction sufficient to keep the plane attached to said conveyor absent sufficient lifting forces. That obviously does not occur in reality.

In reality a plane would have no problems taking off as plane wheels just freely turn. That is why the conveyor is a total spook. A plane is not "moving along the ground" like a car, it is moving along the air relative to the ground. That is also true while on the ground. Since it is not driving its wheels, but rather driving its body with the air. Plane wheels do have some friction but definitely not enough to prevent takeoff.

I explain this because you appear to be, so far, the first one to genuinely not realize it's a troll post. If you actually read the thread you will find myself and numerous others, likely bored as fuck as well, had to make completely unrealistic assumptions to make a hypothetical where a conveyor would even be relevant.

>> No.15347363

>>15347355
>That obviously does not occur in reality.
yes it usually forces the object backwards.

But this is all irrelevant cause it's just gonna crash after it leaves the conveyer anyways.

>> No.15347369

>>15347363
>yes it usually forces the object backwards.
That would be a matter of friction. If and only if the friction experienced by the wheels would be sufficient to halt the momentum of the plane, which in reality it is not. There is a reason people had to explicitly state numerous times that the conveyor could only be relevant IF the friction could halt the plane. In reality this is not the case.

>> No.15347373

the jet engines gives it speed. Its not a car where the engine is mechanically attached to the wheels


Yes it will take off

>> No.15347378

>>15343243
Doesn’t matter, the point of the question is that any amount of movement on the wheels is being pushed back against equally by the conveyor belt, so the wheels will be pulling the plane back as much as it is being pushed forward.

>> No.15347379

>>15347369
Giant concrete blocks for wheels. Problem solved. And since we know the plane does not take off in this scenario, with the speed of the conveyor is zero, this generalizes to all cases such that friction does not matter. The plane never takes off.

>> No.15347383

>>15347369
I dunno man, it depends on the torque of the conveyor, but from experience as a child, when I launch a very fast vehicle onto a relatively slow treadmill it'll stop reverse very quickly. This question is fucking meaningless anyways cause the conveyor belt is as big as the plane.

>> No.15347395

>>15342975
It's interesting how many retards unironically don't know that planes fly because of lift is affected by wind speed and not land speed

>> No.15347495

>>15347343
He's telling you that you get confused by imagining a car in its place just as I tried to explain before.

>> No.15347504

>>15347395
It seems obvious that the confusion comes from people not realizing that the engines push the wings (or wherever they happen to be) not turn the wheels like in a car.

>> No.15347510

>>15347504
The force of the conveyor built is still transferred to the body through the wheels dumbass.

>> No.15347533

>>15347510
how?

>> No.15347541

>>15342975
Yes the jet engines propel it, but lift is caused by the air and now the wing reacts with it. With that conveyor belt, the plane will always stationary, thus no lift.

>> No.15348358

>>15342975
what volume of air is the conveyor belt moving?

>> No.15349085

>>15342975
Two things make the plane fly
>engine (the plane can be stationary) which is not powerful enough to lift it up (lift-to-weight is <1)
>wing-generated lift (the plane has to move for it to be generated)
Given that the conveyor matches the forwars speed immediately, all the thrust from the engines will eventually completely be absorbed by the friction between the conveyor and the tires meaning it won't move at all. No movement means no lift from wings and no lift from wings means it physically can't take off.

>> No.15349296

>>15342975
the conveyor and wheels go infinitely fast so the engines can never move the plane forward
you break physics

>> No.15349307

>>15342975
No matter how fast the belt turns the jet rolls forward off of it anyway because jets are jet propelled, not wheel propelled

>> No.15349924

>>15347355
>plane wheels just freely turn
No they do not, the wheel bearings have friction. Eventually the conveyor will reach such a speed that this friction matches the thrust of the engine. In reality though the tires will explode first.

>> No.15350338

>>15349924
>No they do not, the wheel bearings have friction.
>>15347355
>Plane wheels do have some friction but definitely not enough to prevent takeoff.
Couldn't even make it to the end of the paragraph. Sad.