Do people qualify as white once they figure this problem out?
>>519937004It just depends on the air speed, the ground speed is irrelevant.
>>519937127I am white, but I have no redhead gf....do I win a redhead gf?
>>519937004bait. it could take off if the conveyor transported the 747 forward. aircraft carrier catapults do this.
>>519937004Literally cannot take off>t aerospace engineer
Just make runways into giant conveyor belts and save hella space
>>519937217HA trick question the conveyor belt itself is on wheels and moving at takeoff speed bet you didn't think about that
>>519937004It's a trick question that's presented deceptively which is kike/nigger/pajeet behavior by retarded abortions that want to feel smart.The thrust propels the airframe and the wheels just freewheel and the airframe would start accelerating away from the conveyor belt as though it weren't even there. However it would never reach the appropriate speed for takeoff before it reached the end of the conveyor unless it was the size of an entire runway.Literally only shitskins would even bother giving a yes or no answer to this (or ask it in the first place)Fucking disgusting street shitter OP.
>>519937004No lift is being generated the plane is stationary.
>>519937267>planes cannot take off>planes cannot landwow is this American education?
>>519937004I believe only certain planes can do this, prop planes are more likely. The lift generated by the prop moving air can cause them to take off.
>>519937127I'm always shocked at the amount of people that think airplane wheels are powered like a car's.There is a practical limit to the question, where the tires basically explode, but that aside it's still amusing to try to explain it to people.
>>519937348>airplane wheels generate liftholy fuck moron, lemme guess, $240k PLC tech with 60 acres and trad wife?
runway too short
>>519937456I see your point.
>>519937347nigga u just got concorded because ur tires popped
>>519937550>niggafuck off you brain rotted shitskin
>>519937004Yes it can take off.
>>519937550Fucking disgusting muttoid subhuman fucking shitskin
>>519937347It says it's as long as a runway you fucking retard.
>>519937004>Can the plane take off?No. The engines will stall die to lack of air.Engines compress air & create thrust. If the plane itself is not moving in space, there isn't enough air flowing through the intake. Thus the engines either cannot spin up enough, or will stall out.
>>519937004PPL here. This is irrelevant, since it's the wings that generate the lift with respect to airspeed to achieve rotation. Plane wheels mean fuckall.
>>519937585Here on pol we say nigger with hard r, simple as.
>>519937425people already know thisif the conveyor belt is moving at the speed the wheels are however, the plane wont be able to move, since while the plane is on the ground to move forward its wheels are turning. not because its powered by its wheels, but because its wheels are touching the ground. If the ground is however counteracting this motion because the runway is matching the speed of the wheels, the plane cannot logically be moving.>>519937456the plane is still stationary in this example because above
There is no air passing over the wings of the aircraft so there is no lift. Speed is 0.
>>519937733easy on this little fella, he is malnourished and probably has intestinal parasites
>>519937004>lift>thrust>drag
>>519937833Retard. This would be like trying to take off with the brakes on. You might start moving but your tires are going to pop.
>>519937425Some airplanes have wheels which are powered.It's mostly so they can do pushback without needing an external tug and/or for improved handling during taxiing.Not very common (yet) though
>>519937882How did Canada get so brown ? I remember going their in the 90s and being amazed at how clean and white the city was.
>>519937004The cool thing is the conveyor could go backwards at twice the speed of the plane and the plane would still take off.
>>519937004A couple planes that have a greater than 1.0 thrust to weight ratio might take off.
its 2/3
You need enough forward momentum to for lift off. Ever seen a heavy bird take off? They usually need a running start. Birds who don't, are capable of vertical lift like a helicopter. A 747 isn't built for that.
>>519937259>t.aerospace engineer>at boeing
>>519937004It depends entirely on the starting position of the belt. If the plane goes over the little seam where the belt connects I think there is a good chance it would damage the tires and cause a catastrophic failure like when you fuck up the belt on a belt sander.
>>519937127this is somewhat incorrect. the plane increases altitude because more air is forced over its wings than under them, creating a pull upwards as if a giant suction cup was attached to the wing, pulling it up. this can only happen when the plane is moving through the air. If the plane is stationairy then no air is mived over the wings.The jet engines move the plane forward by sucking air in and blowing it behind the plane. This does not move air over the wings, the movement of the plane forward does this. If there is no movement of the wings forward, there is no pull upwards.Disclaimer: I am a brainlet with rudementary knowledge of science, engineering, and good knowledge of mathematics.
>>519938149It's 1/2 (do or don't)
>>519937425I don't think I ever really thought about it. I suppose I did think the wheels were powered on the ground, which makes no sense at all now that I think about the physics.
>>519937958by the rules set forth in the premise, you could only begin to move because the belt speed will ALWAYS counter the wheel rotation, meaning you will never be able to outrun it before tire failure. It would be a self-feeding loop.Indians are retarded, though
>>519938229>lottery odds are 50/50what a retard lol
>>519938149nope. 50%
>>519938136Did you know planes need a rolls Royce phantom engine driving each wheel to get enough speed in order to fly?
>>519937004In practical terms, yes it can. But autistic engineers argue over what the conveyer belt is doing and miss the forest for the trees. Many such cases.
>>519938348there are two ways out of three to pick a ball from box 1 therefore it's 2/3
>>519937004Small planes can be lifted from a stationary position if the wind speed is absurdly high, but it's just going to flip over. This retard bait doesn't say anything about windspeed or the engines, so presumably the plane just sits there.
>>519938149
>>519937004solved it for you chud.
>>519938348This. It's either gold or it's not.
>>519938419Really you're down to the question of which box 1 or 2, and you've got a 50/50 chance of being in one box or the other.
>>519938382I was under the impression this is a magic unlimited speed treadmill and we're ignoring the wheel assemblies melting with the plane pulling ahead regardless of their slag status.
Well the plane wont stay on the conveyor belt. Its power comes from the Engines on the wing pushing air, not from the wheels transmitting to the ground. That said it wont gain enough speed quick enough to avoid tipping off the front of that conveyor belt and nose diving into the ground
>>519938592>niggers that can't read award
>>519938592Lies & American BS
>>519938592Congratulations, you got every single point wrong. You win the brownest anon award.
>>519937004From the top of my mind the only thing that matters is if it can get lift. But I would assume that the engines would create the needed thrust to push the plane forward thus allowing it to obtain the needed lift.
>>519938592@Grok IS THIS TRUE!?
if this worked then this tech would be used on aircraft carriers instead of slingshots
>>519938592How is the plane gonna move forward without the wheels turning faster than the conveyor belt?
>>519937958Reading comprehension isnt your thing, clearly. Go take some lessons first before even speaking to me.
>>519937004the key consideration is the force of friction between the wheels and conveyor belt
>>519938592>as wide and long as a runway
>>519937425The entire problem functions on the tires and landing gear components. The thrust of the engines is going to push the plane forward and the tires are going to spin against the movement of the co veyor at whatever speed is required to push itself forward. However there is a material limit to how fast the tires can spin thanks to friction created on the landing gear assembly components etc. What would happen is the plane woukd not take off. It would roll forward on the conveyor and tip of the front of the conveyor belt and be damaged. Or the landing gears would fail.
>>519937004Planes fly because air passing over the wing causes lift. If the plane is not moving forward then it won't fly. It doesn't matter how much thrust is coming out of those engines, it wil be negated by the giant treadmill because the thrust of the engines is horizontal.
>>519938796Runway length and width only matter when factoring density altitude. Thats why during dispatch you check takeoff, climb and landing performance to see if its even possible.
>>519938419pls, reconsider. premise is, you have drawn gold. only two boxes contain gold, so the two silver piece box is out of the equation. now think again.
>>519937550Good morning
ultralights can take off at near vtol lengths it's all Th->Wt ratios and airspeed over the wings
>>519938778No u. The conveyor belt always matches the spinning speed of the wheels. Therefore, to move forward the plane would need to drag the wheels. It would be the same as trying to takeoff on a normal runway with the brakes on. The wheels are not irrelevant in that case.
>>519938882This. Its airspeed, not groundspeed, that matters.
>>519938838>The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels
>>519938221You're incorrect. Other anon was correct. A strong wind can lift a plane. It used to happen to sea planes parked in New Zealand regularly. I imagine the wind needed to lift a jumbo jet would be tornado tier, but it's theoretically possible.
>>519938882Sadly wrong.
>>519937004Wheels only brake, the belt is irrelevant.
At some point the speed of the conveyor belt will create wind which will cause the plane to hover in place. The question is will the planes wheels, now spinning down since they are no longer in contact with the belt, decelerate slowly enough that the planes forward momentum caused by the engines now being free to push it forward will counteract it and keep the plane aloft before crashing into the conveyor belt and starting the process over again?
>>519937550Good morning. Now that I think about it a magic the gathering type pajeet game could be a lot of fun.
>>519937850you're fucking retarded, thrust comes from the engines. it doesn't matter if the plane moves relative to the ground plane, as the airframe is moving through the medium of the air, which generates lift across the wings. think of it as a frame of reference with the airframe being stationary, rather than ground being stationary.
>>519938838now I see why bots post these logic tests. to test other bots and keep electricity providers profitable.
>>519937004I lift the front end of the conveyor up once the engines are at maximum power output, the thrust from them combined with the backblast of the exhaust hitting the floor will cause the plane to lift into the air. No longer shackled to the infinite speed treadmill it's wings can begin generating lift.
>>519938882another retard.hahahahahaha it's ridiculous how stupid people are. and you're competent enough to type and use this website. I wonder how many normies get this incorrect like you
>>519938898the question is given your first ball is gold what is the probability you pick another gold ball from the same box. in other words, what is the probability you chose a box that contains two gold balls. in other words, what is the probability that you chose box 1. you can only choose a gold ball out of boxes 1 or 2. there are two ways to choose a gold ball from box 1. there is one way to choose the one gold ball from box 2. because there are three gold balls you could have chosen, you have a higher probability of being in box 1 (precisely double) because there are precisely double the ways of choosing a gold ball from it the first timeqed
>>519939155You are a stage of enlightenment below me, 2 now since ive found a potential argument against my previous view.The plane cannot move forward as long as it is touching the ground because the conveyor belt is spinning as fast as the wheels. You think the engines can just push the plane forward and ignore this, but then the planes wheels would have to be spinning faster than the conveyor belt and the problem explicitly states this is impossible.
>>519937004No, plane is static, it is gaining no momentum
>>519938983The wheels rotation speed is going to be whatever is required for the thrust of the engines to push the plane forward. Now the components arent totally frictionless- so there will be some backwards force exerted on the plane, however I dont think it will be enough to counteract the thrust of the engines. And IF it were enough to have any appreciable impact on the forward thrust of the engines it woukd rapidly cause component failure of the gears due to heat and friction caused by that rapid a rotation.
>>519937004Women are the enemy that plays both sides.All philosphies and systems will work if people cooperated and were fair, honest, reasonable, etc(overal good) with eachother.But women are always dishonest, manipulative, uncooperative, selfish overall inherently evil.They see men build something amazing and every single time they go and destroy what we've built and play victim to steal from it until it loses all of it's quality and becomes completely corrupt. They're parasites who will do anything to turn men against eachother.They're the reason our competitive spirit sometimes goes overboard.They're the reason a joke is taken too far.They're the reason problems exist.They're the reason wars exist.Simps are just blinding themselves by playing along with them until so much damage is done that even the most pro-women guys eventually turn against women. But by the time this finally happens they're now in the minority and are stuck dealing with other younger simps and women actively corrupting everything in their path.Pretty soon the number of men who have suffered from this will grow so large that we will overthrow this faulty system all at once in every country but sadly we're in the worst times.The ones who are currently 30-50 and younger will probably end up suffering the most until the number of sufferers grows so much as to become unignorable.This is what happens when you believe women morons. Record this in history and NEVER let it happen again.
>>519938517>you either win the lottery or you dont >therefore you have a 50/50 chance of winning every time you buy a powerball ticket
>>519938980They are irrelevant because the mechanism that generates lift is airspeed, not groundspeed. I can tell you dont have any hours, but let me put it this way.When you are on the climb out post takeoff, you have to pitch for a certain airspeed. Too low, you dont climb. Too high, youll stall after exceeding critical angle of attack.A plane on the ground functions the same way. The wheels arent powered lmfao.
>>519937774???????????????????????????????????????????? HHAAHHAAHAHA
>>519937004I'm gonna guess it needs the air movement from actually moving to take off. I don't know much about planes though
Yes it would take off. The plane would still move forward regardless of the treadmill, the wheels would just spin much faster.
>>519937425Most people think there is no gravity in space.They aren't stupid, it just doesn't cross their mind, they don't think about it, nor should they, it has no relevancy to their personal lives.
>>519939448The plane would roll forward and tip off the conveyor and be damaged.
>>519939337>The wheels rotation speed is going to be whatever is required for the thrust of the engines to push the plane forward.No, because you set that and then try to move forward and suddenly the wheels are even spinning faster than they would at normal takeoff, so the belt moves faster, so it pushes forward more spinning the wheels more, so the belt spins faster, etc.It is logically impossible for the plane to move forward given the stated problem. Even with perfectly frictionless wheels, because the reality the problem takes place in states the conveyorbelt will never be moving slower than the wheels are moving. The plane being stationary if its touching the ground is simply an absolute law given these rules.
>>519938896irrelevant. i was countering the other anon's use of "that runway", which indicated he skimmed the text and based his response on the image. i made no other assertion.
>>519937004It can take off only if it has 100 male passengers and a gorilla is the pilot.
>>519939068>At some point the speed of the conveyor belt will create wind which will cause the plane to hover in place.Nigger brain>>519939448Not really unless you had an incredibly strong headwind, an exceptionally powerful turboprop, low DA or other really favorable factors. You still need Vy at the minimum to rotate (or in the 747 case, V1)
>>519938241what the fuck would even power the wheels??? holy fuck you people are NPCs. you think there's some high torque gas engine or massive batteries in the plane somewhere wasted on rotating the wheels? why the fuck do you think the engines are feathered after landing when navigating to the gate? and what do you think the tow trolleys do to get planes away from the gate?
>>519937004Question is if the friction tires create on its mounting is higher than the thrust of jet engines. As i assume the thrust is greater the wheels and belt can spin as fast as they want, the plane would move and eventually take off
>>519937004If there is a 184mph headwind, the minimum speed for lifting a 747, the plane will take off and float.
>>519939590You think the conveyorbelt is frictionless? it will drag air along with it, and since rules effectively create an infinitely accelerating conveyorbelt it will eventually have to produce wind as it drags the air above it backwards
>>519939410Cool, so since the wheels are irrelevant that means you can takeoff with the brakes on. The engines won't have to overcome the friction of the tires on the ground since groundspeed doesn't matter. In fact, I think you should go try it right now, you'll definitely confirm yourself right.
>>519938149There are 3 types of people who answer 1/2:>People who haven't fully grasped the question yet>People who can't accept their first answer was incorrect and have come up with a completely implausible interpretation of the question to justify their answer>Trolls
>>519939295you're overthinking it. >you have drawn gold eliminates the box that only contains silver>two boxes in play now, one containing another gold, the other a silver one.>now your next draw from same box is either gold or not.>50%
>>519937004Assuming magic wheels that don't overheat and explode, and a magic conveyor belt, the plane does not take off. Planes get their lift from air flowing over and under the wing. This happens because the engines produce thrust and push the plane forwards. Once in the air, the engines can push it just fine, but on the ground, it needs to overcome the friction with the ground to get that initial movement needed to get lift. As the ground is magic and will always match the plane's forward movement with an equal opposite movement, it will never move forward, and never get the lift needed to take off.
>>519939677This is a fair point. But I don't know if the conveyorbelt can get fast enough to create the requisite pressure zone before the wheels on the jet explode.
>>519937004>the conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels moving in the opposite directionYou're only white if you understand why this is a nonsense statement.
>Imagine a large conveyor belt under a 747...Just shut the fuck up
>>519938221No. Its standing still in space because, for obvious reasons, so there is no for exerted on the air around it
>>519937004>plane remains stationary, does not experience any updraftobviously notif the solution was that simple, we would have fucking huge ass airports that take up the size of a small city
>>519939526it's an impossibility, period>plane begins to creep forward, wheels move at .001>'runway' begins moving at .001>wheels now move at .001 from thrust and .001 from the ground being yanked under them, wheel speed is now .002 even if no extra thrust added>change 'runway' to .002 and you get .002 runway + .001 thrust = .003 wheel speedit's a senseless question
>>519939307HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>519937004That is one expensive wind tunnel.
>>519939526The "traction" of the wheel on the pavement isnt like a car. The thrust is being generated by the jet engines not rotational force and torque on the tires. So (as I have already stated) there are only two possibilities. >1. The wheels rotate at whatever speed is required to move forward>2. If the conveyor matches that speed it simply speed up rotation until the components fail due to heat and friction.Like I said, the components arent frictionless though so tgere will be *some* thrust force being "lost" that is practically the only real consideration to keep in mind.
>>519937004Depends what "speed of the wheels" is supposed to mean. Linear motion? Then yes. Rotationally? Probably not because within a couple moments the wheel bearings will have reached their limit and melted approaching infinite speed, which will cause too much friction and start a fire that destroys the plane.
>>519938787Also, the inertia of the conveyor belt.As stated, there must be a source of energy in the conveyer belt to immediately counteract the force of friction applied by the wheels.If that isn't present to counteract the force of friction directly, then the inertia of the conveyor belt would provide enough resistance to allow the plane to accelerate and take off from the force of friction.If as stated, there was something providing enough, and effectively instantaneous counter force to keep the wheels stationary, then you have two sources of energy maintaining a balance - the plane would never move forward and no lift would be generated.In the real world, there would be enough force of friction due to the inertia of the conveyor for the plane to accelerate forward, build up enough speed and take off.
>>519939753If we are introducing friction to one component of the test, then the gears should experience friction also. The gears fail long before the conveyor generates any appreciable airflow.
>>519939739nope you fundamentally do not understand the question. if you say "it's either gold or it's not" then you also believe lottery odds are win or not and therefore 50/50. there are two ways to choose a gold ball from box 1 and one way to choose a gold ball from box 2. bertrands box is pretty simple stuff but it's okay if you don't get it because the world needs ditch diggers and people to wait tables
>>519938984Nigger. Your example is congruent with the anon you said was incorrect.In your example the wind is air moving against the wings. In the other anon's example, assuming zero wind speed, the plane needs to move to create lift. The engines don't move air against the wings, they move the plane against the air. The conveyor is actually moving the plane backwards, only at a pace to match the forward movement of the plane, the backwards movement keeps the plane in place, and no air is moved against the wings to create lift.
>>519939526It's not necessarily, it just means the wheels would need to drag for the plane to move forward. Which would result in tire failure and a fiery death for everyone on board.
>>519938221>the plane increases altitude because more air is forced over its wings than under themI thought it was more along the lines of less pressure above the wing and more pressure below the wing
>>519937004If you consider that entire mechanical system to be realistic, then nothing in that image would work in any predictable manner. The plane would pick up speed until either the conveyor belt, the wheels, or both, fail. In which case, the plane can either take off or crash, depending on what failed first, at what speed, how and to what degree.If you consider the system to be ideal, then the plane is essentially riding on ice and will take off even faster, since the friction that would slightly drag the wheels disappears and the engines have to overcome a lesser opposing force.
>>519939701you just changed the problem. locked brakes is creating a friction force against the airframe. it's a different scenario than freely rotating wheels on top of a moving belt. nice try, schlomo.
>>519937127This.>>519937347But especially this.I remember when this was hot and heavy some 15 or so years ago and basically it boiled down to how you understood the question.
>>519939590None of the planes momentum is coming from the wheels so the plane would accelerate like it normally would. You could try to factor in wheel bearings overheating from increased rotation but I don't think that is the point of the picture.
>>519938419Not actually why it's 2/3, it's 2/3 because the odds for pulling a gold ball from the first box verses the second box is 2:1.So the way you calculate the probability from that 2:1 ratio is 2/(2 + 1) = 2/3The first box could have a billion gold balls in it and it would still be 2/3 because it can't go higher than a concentration of 100% gold balls.
>>519939701>Cool, so since the wheels are irrelevant that means you can takeoff with the brakes onTechnically yes. If you have a hurricane force wind enough to generate lift, combined with a low density altitude, and a strong enough prop, you can theoretically take off with the brakes on. Per aerodynamic laws at least. But no one is ever going to actually try that.
>>519938221Wings have a very flat smooth surface on the bottom and a smoothed out lump on top.The lump deflects air ever so slightly and slows it down yo create a low pressure area behind the lump and over the wing.The air under the wing is regular pressure but due to the difference between top and bottom is relatively high pressure and will try to plug the gap by pushing up beneath the wing.That is where lift comes from.So naturally if the plane is standing on a conveyor belt, and all of its lift is completely dependent on the speeds of the air moving over and under the wing, the plane won't be going up even if the wheels and conveyor belt are going over 9000.
>>519939743retard
>>519937004>Sudden tornado comes out of nowhere and sucks up the planeThere, it took off.
>>519937004Another way of asking this question is:>"If a 747's wheels spin fast enough, could it spontaneously get lift and take off?"
>>519940018How am I wrong? There is no air flow over the wings.
>>519939912kek. i don't quite see your reason for insulting me. you might want to read the wiki article on bertrand's box again. or dig a ditch. whatever.
This thread was moved to >>>/bant/23520542
