i probably don't do it enough, but i wanted to thank those who take the time to prepare these files for us
to download. i appreciate not having to wait for discovery channel canada to air this at a later date.
thanks eztv et al
[#76500]
Written by: spacej [31/01/2008, 12:09]
yeah, finally the conveyor belt.
[#76520]
Written by: Assmunch [31/01/2008, 16:04]
great quality episode, as usual.
i bet that the conveyor-deniers aren't going to accept their results and they'll
have to revisit that myth again and again. not to mention all the flamewars
between folks about their findings but hey, that's the
internets. :d
[#76521]
Written by: Zelda [31/01/2008, 16:12]
i haven't seen this or heard the myth before, but i wouldn't think a conveyer
belt could launch a plane. the plane needs wind running over its wings, the
wings cut through the air and lifts the plane up. but if the plane is stationary
then there is no wind cutting or movement.
still, you never know, stranger things have happened on myth busters.
and someone needs to work out the naming conventions for these episodes, i never
know which folder to put them in when they name them different seasons.
[#76545]
Written by: neonx [31/01/2008, 18:32]
do as i do. i rename the episodes according to wikipedia's listing of the
episodes.
[#76549]
Written by: kinsey [31/01/2008, 19:22]
zelda, that's what i thought the myth was too but, without saying anything about
results, the myth is that an airplane can't fly when moving against a converyor
belt, no matter how hard it tries.
[#76571]
Written by: maxwell22 [01/02/2008, 02:39]
Quote by zelda
i haven't seen this or heard the myth before, but i wouldn't think
a conveyer
belt could launch a plane. the plane needs wind running over its wings, the
wings cut through the air and lifts the plane up. but if the plane is stationary
then there is no wind cutting or movement.
still, you never know, stranger things have happened on myth busters.
and someone needs to work out the naming conventions for these episodes, i never
know which folder to put them in when they name them different seasons.
plane isn't stationary it moves forwards as normal, it's not stuck to the
ground. it moves 82? feet over the conveyor belt to take off. so has air over
wings, and forward motion. you could remove the conveyor belt and get the same
take off.
you want to know why everyone gets it wrong?
the conveyor belt would speed up after the plane was taking off, off the ground,
to match it's ground speed.and make no difference. queue 100 idiots.
[#76582]
Written by: fredcatcheur [01/02/2008, 05:44]
Quote by videoopiate
great ep. but i was confused over the "debate" of the plane
on a conveyor belt
it seemed so obvious to me that i didnt understand how it could have been the
most requested myth ever.
obviously since planes arent propelled by their wheels the conveyor belt would
have no effect on its ability to take off.
the thing is, in most people's mind, and even in the way mb promoted it at some
points, the myth was: can a plane made stationary by a conveyor belt be able to
lift off?
and as a theoretical problem, you could answer no : if the wheel friction was
enough to counteract the propeller traction, the same way powerful brakes can
keep in place a plane with its engines on...
but we'd be talking precise unrealistic conditions : imaginary wheels,
imaginary conveyor belt, and imaginary plane. (and an immense amount of
friction, absolutely not realistic)
irl, the answer is obviously yes: a plane will always move forward, even on a
practical conveyor belt, and it will take off.
but since the imagnary way is by definition not feasible irl, mb tested the
realistic way. which differed a
bit from the theory, obviously, and as usual on mb, they also strayed from a
rigorous
experiment, by introducing (negligibles) variables to the myth (a truck pulling
a tarp at
approximative speed instead of a mechanical conveyor belt, both the plane and
the truck starting at slightly different
times, and so forth), that exposed their flanks to criticism.
in themselves, those variables didn't change a thing, and mb isn't pure rigorous
science, anyway, but the demonstration maybe would have been even more
conclusive for the doubters if they had actually sticked to every single part of
the myth (used a real conveyor belt, for example).
[#76583]
Written by: maxwell22 [01/02/2008, 05:53]
Quote by videoopiate
and as a theoretical problem, you could answer yes
[#76586]
Written by: iwatchtv [01/02/2008, 06:23]
it actually blew my mind to think that people believe a conveyor belt underneath
the airplane would have any effect on the plane's ability to take off as its
method of propulsion isn't by its wheels. a most requested myth? are the viewers
in 3rd grade?
[#76739]
Written by: Totz [01/02/2008, 21:31]
good episode, funny etc.... but
1) the conveyor belt was a sheet, been powered by an external force
2) we never seen the usual "ruler" angle that measured how long it takes to get
off the ground (we seen some random shots of a plane passing cones)
3) kari byron is hott!
[#77228]
Written by: wrecche [03/02/2008, 10:21]
i cant focus on it, kari is wearing a black bra.. thats all im focused on.. not
fair...
damn her sexihotness..
[#77233]
Written by: wrecche [03/02/2008, 11:13]
Quote by iwatchtv
it actually blew my mind to think that people believe a conveyor
belt underneath
the airplane would have any effect on the plane's ability to take off as its
method of propulsion isn't by its wheels. a most requested myth? are the viewers
in 3rd grade?
ok, thnk about what does cause the plant to take off.. air, rushing around the
wings, cause the plane to have less pressure above than below - hence, it lifts.
this we know. how does a plane achieve this? not by mere propeller force, no. it
is the thrust of moving forward that give the air the force required to move the
plane upwards.
so, remove the thrust, you remove the force. and therefore, remove the lift.
i think this myth was flawed in its busting.
if you keep a plane stationary, while it's propeller spins at full throttle,
the plane will not suddenly float. i think the flaw was in the execution of the
myth, that the plane/conveyor belt, were not at an equilibrium that would negate
the thrust.
because, 100% if you negate the forward motion of the plane, it will not
suddenly float in mid air, hence it will not fly. it needs forward motion to
allow air to effect an upward force to the vehicle, and this can only be
achieved by momentum whereby air causes a lower pressure above the plane from
it's wings.
the propeller does not make a plane fly. it's propels it forward only.
gah, how funny..
[#77756]
Written by: yeahyeah [06/02/2008, 22:46]
i know this is in hindsight but.... yes you need air moving over the wings for
lift.... but with no wings at all the engine and propeller will lift something
off the ground...this just goes to show that even pilots, or scientests have no
idea what is going on, they just do the bare minimum until it works and go with
it...
for example: the catalitic converter in every car.....no one has any idea what
so ever what is actually going on inside when the engine is running. tesla knew
all this,..... tesla for president!!!
[#79908]
Written by: [bob] [18/02/2008, 02:33]
imagine this. attach a long chain to the tail of the plain. attach the chain
to a solid object. the chain will create the stationary effect. start the
engine, will the force of the wind created by the propellors generate lift?
this will only work with propellors, jet engines push in stead of pull.
| 1 of 2 |
