MythBusters tackles "plane on a conveyor belt problem"


Recommended Posts

the place where people fail in this problem is that they can't visualize that the wheels of a plane do nothing apart from keeping the plane with minimum resistance to the ground (hint: they're FREE). they don't propel the plane by pushing on the ground - the ENGINE pushing the AIR does.

people also say "the airflow from the engines won't be enough". that's right in the sense that the airflow from the engine alone can't lift the plane. but wrong cause there won't be JUST the airflow from the engines - because the plane WILL move forward regardless of the speed of the conveyor in the opposite direction (remember the wheels are free and the engine pushes on the air), so there will be the engine airflow PLUS the movement of the plane's airflow.

i bet that it'll take off.

The laws of physics should be universal right? I say yes, plane will take off. I've a previous experiment to verify my hypothesis. So lets say my test case is a human running on a treadmill, call him the unexpecting classmate. Now, if unexpecting classmate can go flying-off a treadmill - and humans are not meant to fly - does this not mean that same principal applied to an airplane, which is meant to fly- would work? I think so.

*This is wrong on so many levels, including experimenting on humans which I do not condone.

All I have to say, is... think about a wind tunnel.

This has nothing to do with a wind tunnel. Only the conveyor belt is moving, and a conveyor belt moves no air, and thus no lift.

All I have to say, is... think about a wind tunnel.

a wind tunnel is a cmpletely irrelevant comparison here. the wind tunnel creates wind motion across the entire plane as if it was moving.

The engines won't, however, the engines will most likely have more than enough power to push the plane forward faster than the conveyor belt can move to keep the plane back by friction.

However, I'm pretty sure the pilot knew all this and guessed that the plane would take off, afterall that is the point behind the whole tought experiment in the first place. so if the pilot guessed wrong... well either he's a stupid pilot who said it wouldn't take off, or somehow the plane didn't take off.

the place where people fail in this problem is that they can't visualize that the wheels of a plane do nothing apart from keeping the plane with minimum resistance to the ground (hint: they're FREE). they don't propel the plane by pushing on the ground - the ENGINE pushing the AIR does.

people also say "the airflow from the engines won't be enough". that's right in the sense that the airflow from the engine alone can't lift the plane. but wrong cause there won't be JUST the airflow from the engines - because the plane WILL move forward regardless of the speed of the conveyor in the opposite direction (remember the wheels are free and the engine pushes on the air), so there will be the engine airflow PLUS the movement of the plane's airflow.

i bet that it'll take off.

Hold on a minute, isn't the conveyor moving as fast as it is necessary for the plane to stand still relative the ground?

The thought experiment specifies that the conveyor belt can move fast enough to keep the plane in place, so if the plane goes faster than the conveyor belt the physical experiment has been done wrong.

Hold on a minute, isn't the conveyor moving as fast as it is necessary for the plane to stand still relative the ground?

That's what I thought. I think the only reason people get confused about this problem is that they are unclear on this point. If the plane is standing still relative to the ground it will not take off.

This has nothing to do with a wind tunnel. Only the conveyor belt is moving, and a conveyor belt moves no air, and thus no lift.

What I meant was, in a wind tunnel, the plane never moves from its position, but will (possibly) fly because of the air moving in the tunnel. If a plane was to fly with the conveyor belt experiment, it would need to be pretty windy outside, because if the plane is not moving anywhere, there won't be any lift.

What I meant was, in a wind tunnel, the plane never moves from its position, but will (possibly) fly because of the air moving in the tunnel. If a plane was to fly with the conveyor belt experiment, it would need to be pretty windy outside, because if the plane is not moving anywhere, there won't be any lift.

Still, wind should not be any sort of factor in this experiment. The point is whether or not a moving conveyor belt can cause a plane to take off, which it cannot.

the plane on conveyor belt myth/thought puzzle isn't about getting the plane to take off, just FYI :)

That's wierd because on the TV commercial they said "Adam and Jamie tackle the myth of if a plane is on a convayer belt, will it take off?" seems to be about taking off to me :p

Yes, if velocity = 0, there is no lift.

However, velocity != 0, so that's irrelevant.

Anyway, at least it seems like most of you on here are smart enough to know it will take off. I was on another message board and most of them can't seem to get it through their heads how jet engines work. Ahh well. :p

Umm...if the myth were true and the plane did have a chance to take off, wouldn't the military have taken advantage of such a thing on aircraft carriers to reduce runway size?

No, because it takes the same amount of runway to take off. It doesn't sit still then take off, it moves forward just like if the ground wasn't moving.

Umm...if the myth were true and the plane did have a chance to take off, wouldn't the military have taken advantage of such a thing on aircraft carriers to reduce runway size?

Exactly. These fools that think it will fly, ROFL!

Curious why velocity != 0 if it will be stationary...

^^ By the way, the military wouldn't shorten the runways, or else how the hell would the planes land?? haha didn't think of that one did ya?

They can land on the conveyor belt! :woot:

Umm...if the myth were true and the plane did have a chance to take off, wouldn't the military have taken advantage of such a thing on aircraft carriers to reduce runway size?

They do.

The Catapult is essentially a realy fast conveyor belt, just without the belt since planes have wheels that rotate freely :)

it WONT be stationary. the conveyor will be moving back at the same speed as the plane's forward speed. but the trick is that the plane's speed is NOT dependent on the GROUND (otherwise how the HECK do you think it flies after leaving the ground?!). the plane moves by pushing the air back and not the ground back.

so what happens is that the conveyor's speed is totally irrelevant to the plane. it will still move forward, because it doesn't depend on the ground to move forward (only to keep it from "falling to the center of the earth" while it doesn't have enough windspeed to sustain itself).

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I use Gemini in my rotation of AI clients...that work pays for. It is good at most things, better than copilot for imgage searching and making images, worse at writing vs Claude and way worse at hadling technical issues when it comes to Azure stuff. I also use YT premium and maps. Anything else Google is a pass for me. I have now seen multiple people locked out of their Google accounts for reasons that are just very vauge.
    • Microsoft is building an AI datacenter that "uses less water than a fast food restaurant" by Ivan Jenic Image: Microsoft Microsoft has announced plans to build a new datacenter campus in Pecos, Texas, as the company continues to invest billions in AI infrastructure. The new facility, called project Kilby, will reportedly have a capacity of 2 gigawatts and will be one of the largest single capacity additions in the company’s history. To power the campus, Microsoft signed a 20-year deal with Chevron to supply natural gas from the Permian Basin, America's largest oil field. This deal is set to become the largest collaboration to date between a U.S. oil and gas giant and Big Tech. It’s no secret that Big Tech has often been criticized for exploiting natural resources for its AI developments. Microsoft is trying to mitigate some of that negative consensus by promising to build its own power supply for the new datacenter, independent of the public grid. The Pecos datacenter will be powered by a power plant hub, built by Chevron, with up to 2.5 gigawatts of gas-fired capacity, with potential to scale to up to 5 gigawatts. The facility will include at least seven GE Vernova turbines, with first power potentially coming online as early as late 2027 or early 2028. The power plant hub is part of an approximately $7 billion investment by Chevron, making it one of the largest dedicated energy projects tied to a single datacenter campus in the U.S. Microsoft hasn’t publicly disclosed the amount it’s investing in the new datacenter. Microsoft has also committed to implementing a closed-loop cooling system that will only require an initial water charge to operate. The company said that “the total lifecycle water use of this datacenter is only a fraction of that consumed annually by a typical fast-food restaurant.” What the press release doesn’t mention, however, is how much water the natural gas plant itself will consume, or how a 20-year fossil fuel commitment squares with the company's pledge to be carbon negative by 2030. The construction of the new datacenter should provide over 6,000 construction jobs at peak build-out, and create hundreds of operational job roles once the facility is built. Via: Reuters
    • A lot of uncertainty in this story. Might. Could. Maybe. The truth is we don't know what will happen to the universe in the end, or if it will end. Our own Milky Way galaxy will merge with the Andromeda galaxy in about 2.5 billion years, with our solar system as part of a new, larger cluster. I guess we'll have to and see how it goes down.
    • While people can rely on text expansion, it'd be nice to be able to save prompts as aliases. Since AI chatbots need so much provided context to lessen the chance of them going off rails in their response, it'd be nice to be able to start your prompt with a command word that provides all the necessary context that you find yourself often providing. I know there are 'memory' features, including in Gemini, but I still find myself needing to tell it things in each specific conversation for it to give appropriate responses in many contexts. For example, I have it in the memory that I'm running Fedora 44 KDE Plasma 6.7 yet Gemini constantly gives me instructions for older versions. Once I remind it what I'm running, it corrects itself. This isn't something I should need to do every time I prompt it about my setup.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      tuben earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      mnsgroup earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Conversation Starter
      sumytbe earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      B4dM1k3 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      DarkWun earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      523
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      195
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      94
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      82
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!