The Art

[Flash Harry]

I vote this one thread to be the longest piece of drivel I've ever seen on any forum. H

With all due respects, in my opinion, this is not the longest piece of drivel on any forum. I believe that this thread is longer and more drivelly. Google's 2007-Q3/Q4 PageRank (PR) Update

Flash Harry, I'm really not spoiling for a fight, just trying to make Overread happy and get the thing to 42 pages.

Why on earth would I think your spoiling for a fight, and, whats the significance of a 42 page thread?

Besides, I was on Petrio's side, there's no such thing as photographic art, and thats my final say on the subject.

Unless there's a fight to be picked H

 

[usayit]

Besides, I was on Petrio's side, there's no such thing as photographic art, and thats my final say on the subject.

You did not just do that......

Ok... where's that dictionary...

 

[pgriz]

Hmmm. without the $h!t-disturbers, we don't have volume. Time for another hijack.

I was on one board that went 64 pages discussing whether an airplane could take off if it was on a conveyor belt that matched (in reverse sense) the movement of the wheels. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

 

[usayit]

I was on one board that went 64 pages discussing whether an airplane could take off if it was on a conveyor belt that matched (in reverse sense) the movement of the wheels. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

There's enough content to discuss that for 64 pages?

Its all about Bernoulli's principle .. the conveyor belt is irrelevant.

 

[table1349]

I vote this one thread to be the longest piece of drivel I've ever seen on any forum. H

With all due respects, in my opinion, this is not the longest piece of drivel on any forum. I believe that this thread is longer and more drivelly. Google's 2007-Q3/Q4 PageRank (PR) Update

Flash Harry, I'm really not spoiling for a fight, just trying to make Overread happy and get the thing to 42 pages.

Why on earth would I think your spoiling for a fight, and, whats the significance of a 42 page thread?

Besides, I was on Petrio's side, there's no such thing as photographic art, and thats my final say on the subject.

Unless there's a fight to be picked H

Oh Yeah......... Well I would direct you to this particular post. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photographic-discussions/213050-art-32.html#post1997591

If it is on youtube it is FACT!!!:mrgreen::lmao:

As for the 42 pages that is the goal of this thread.

 

[pgriz]

I was on one board that went 64 pages discussing whether an airplane could take off if it was on a conveyor belt that matched (in reverse sense) the movement of the wheels. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

There's enough content to discuss that for 64 pages?

Its all about Bernoulli's principle .. the conveyor belt is irrelevant.

OK, let's try this:

Imagine you've got a plane sitting on a runway. This runway, however, is special - it's a conveyor belt that senses the motion of the airplane's wheels. So, as soon as the airplane starts its engines and gets enough thrust to move the wheels, the conveyor belt senses this movement and rolls back the same amount that the wheels move forward. Will this plane ever leave the ground? (for purposes of this discussion, assume all frictional effects of wheels, tires, and conveyors, are null).

 

[usayit]

Um... the wheels don't move the plane forward by rotational/friction, the thrust from the jet engines do. So the conveyor belt (and wheels) are irrelevant.

For every action there is an equal opposite reaction. Jet engines do not rotate the wheels they produce thrust via newton's law of motion (3rd I think). Conveyer belt only has an effect on the rotation of the wheels not the craft itself.

A car on the other hand does produce forward movement via rotational force on wheels. As such, the conveyor belt will have an effect on the car itself. In this case, the (total velocity of the vehicle) = Vcar - Vconveyor. If Vconveyor is consistently the negative value of Vcar then total velocity of the vehicle is zero. Now put wings on the car and you have a more relative discussion by looking at Bernoulli's equations with v=0.

 

[Buckster]

Um... the wheels don't move the plane forward by rotational/friction, the thrust from the jet engines do. So the conveyor belt (and wheels) are irrelevant.

.
The jets thrust the plane forward. Without lift, it stays on the ground, on the wheels, which then must turn (or drag, if the brakes are locked up). The conveyor compensates for this relative motion.

The point is that the plane stays in place relative to everything but the conveyor.

And, of course it will take off. (If it's a Harrier! :greenpbl: )

 

[usayit]

I don't think so.

The wheels have one purpose... to apply upward force to counter gravity. It rotates freely independent of the jets propulsion. Any forces applied to the wheels themselves are directed simply to the rotation of the wheels. Jets on the other hand are based on the law that for every force there is an equal opposite force. The forces of jet propulsion are isolated to the fluid (air) in which is in operation.

Mythbusters, airplane on a conveyor belt

In other words, the conveyor belts horizontal velocity/acceleration is 100% isolated from the craft by the rotation of the wheels. As such, the only horizontal velocity and acceleration that matters is the forces generated by the engines themselves on the fluid (air), not the ground (conveyor belt) The vertical velocity/acceleration is 100% produced by the lift generated by the wings via the Bournolli principle.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode97


Now.. If glued the plane to the conveyor belt (a really strong one) with the wheels removed, you are no longer isolating the horizontal forces applied by the conveyor belt. The result is completely different.

Now.. If you controlled the wind around the aircraft in such that it is counter to the forward motion of the aircraft, then yes..... the plane will not take off. (This is similar to the car on the conveyor belt example). This is because the fluid (air) is not isolated from the craft.

 

[Buckster]

You don't get a plane into the air without lift. You don't get lift without airflow over the wings. You don't get airflow over the wings unless the plane is moving forward in relation to the air.

 

[usayit]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ul_5DtMLhc[/ame]

 

[usayit]

You don't get a plane into the air without lift. You don't get lift without airflow over the wings. You don't get airflow over the wings unless the plane is moving forward in relation to the air.

What moves the plane forward? Jet propulsion which only acts on the fluid surrounding not the ground (or conveyor belt) which is isolated from the plane itself. You said it yourself... "moving forward in relation to the air". Conveyer belt does not act on the air.


What you say is only true if and only if the forward motion of plane is achieved via applying force to the rotation of the wheels just like a car.

 

[Buckster]

The plane moved forward past the cones - along the runway. The whole point is that the plane remain stationary in relation to the ground due to the conveyor counteracting the plane's forward thrust. They didn't achieve that at all. In effect, all they did was slow it down - but not enough to keep it from moving forward to get airflow over the wings and achieve lift.

 

[usayit]

The plane moved forward past the cones - along the runway. The whole point is that the plane remain stationary in relation to the ground due to the conveyor counteracting the plane's forward thrust.

You are missing the point.... It is impossible for a conveyor belt to keep the plane stationary. The only thing that matters is the force of the propulsion and the fluid surrounding (and the velocity of said fluid) the aircraft.

 

[Overread]

Pfft that belt wasn't moving fast enough and its arguable that the plane got rolling forward far too much thus allowing it to fly. Besides that is a propeller plane and not a jet - the propeller clearly blows air back onto the wings to create additional upward force