PDA

View Full Version : So who watched Mythbusters awhile ago?



slo_1_2_3
12-12-2007, 10:30 PM
How did the plane on the conveyor work out? I missed it but I'm gonna watch it in a little bit when it comes back on.
Anyone surprised at the result?

Badsight-
12-12-2007, 10:40 PM
this topic has gone past 10 pages before

slo_1_2_3
12-12-2007, 10:42 PM
yea, but it was going to be tested tonight on mythbusters, I missed it , We finally get an answer

Esel1964
12-12-2007, 10:45 PM
They didn't do a plane on a conveyor belt.They did 3 different parachuting myths,and can an untrained person land a jumbojet;first they tried it completely alone,then with someone talking them down at a NASA simulator.
Pretty good episode! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

slo_1_2_3
12-12-2007, 10:48 PM
? Someone said thats what they were doing tonight, what ?!
I was looking forward to it too. guess I'll have to jack a plane and find a conveyor... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

willyvic
12-12-2007, 11:23 PM
Discovery channel boo-booed. They listed it as airing tonight by mistake. The Myth Busters Forum is up in arms at the moment.

An excutive producer for the series has posted:

"Dear all,

As wbarnhill called out, I thought I should step in to what is rapidly becoming a hornet's nest. I will try to calm things down but I don't hold out much hope!

First up, for those concerned that this story has been cancelled, don't worry, planes on a conveyer belt has been filmed, is spectacular, and will be part of what us Mythbusters refer to as 'episode 97'. Currently that is due to air on January 30th.

Secondly, for those very aggrieved fans feeling "duped" into watching tonight's show, I can only apologise. I'm not sure why the listings / internet advertised that tonight's show contained POCB. I will endeavour to find out an answer but for those conspiracy theorists amongst you, I can assure you that it will have just been an honest mistake. At one point
several months ago, POCB was going to be part of Airplane Hour. Somewhere, someone has mistakenly posted the wrong listing. It will have been a genuine mistake but nonetheless it was a mistake which is unacceptable. As said I will try to find out what went wrong and hope that you will see fit to forgive the team at Discovery.

Thanks in advance,

Dan"


WV

slo_1_2_3
12-12-2007, 11:30 PM
I just kind of thought of it as a minor inconvenience, but those people seem pissed.

Billy_BigBoy
12-12-2007, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by willyvic:
Currently that is due to air on January 30th.


In other words: 2 weeks, be sure!

xTHRUDx
12-13-2007, 12:16 AM
many people were angered over at the MB forum. they locked all threads over there.
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9401967776/m/5841963149

wow. someone screwd up

in the mean time, watch this amatuer version.
the plane will fly!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EopVDgSPAk

DxyFlyr
12-13-2007, 02:44 PM
I don't understand the issue here. What does it matter how fast the ground is moving under the airplane? There's no power to the wheels.

DxyFlyr
12-13-2007, 02:51 PM
By the way... "Mythbusters" is one of the very few reasons I own a TV. It's excellent. The only thing that might top it is "Dirty Jobs".

LEBillfish
12-13-2007, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by DxyFlyr:
I don't understand the issue here. What does it matter how fast the ground is moving under the airplane? There's no power to the wheels.

Well, the issue is much of the world has no common sense and many are desperate to prove they know better then what has been proven....

Know anyone perhaps even that visits here that gets a hold of a concept and just can't learn from others no matter the proof and evidence given?

TheGozr
12-13-2007, 03:03 PM
What I want to see is a Mythbuster on LEBillfish.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DxyFlyr
12-13-2007, 03:11 PM
She's got mythic status, no doubt!

Waldo.Pepper
12-13-2007, 03:38 PM
Disappointing episode. I don't think the boys were really trying to land the jet when they were on their own.

However, it has had the effect of making my opinion of most of our abilities in a similar situation soar, and I now think that most of us could in fact land ourselves.

How is that for arrogant! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TX-EcoDragon
12-13-2007, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Disappointing episode. I don't think the boys were really trying to land the jet when they were on their own.

However, it has had the effect of making my opinion of most of our abilities in a similar situation soar, and I now think that most of us could in fact land ourselves.

How is that for arrogant! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I've flown with quite a few sim pilots, and let me just say, use your own airplane to prove it, and I'll watch from the ground! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

buzzsaw1939
12-13-2007, 09:39 PM
Right on TX!.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

xTHRUDx
12-14-2007, 12:16 AM
it surprises me that people think it won't takeoff.
i guess i better not try to takeoff in my float plane upstream in the river then. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

skarden
12-14-2007, 01:12 AM
Plonk ! Now we wait http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

BaronUnderpants
12-14-2007, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by xTHRUDx:
it surprises me that people think it won't takeoff.
i guess i better not try to takeoff in my float plane upstream in the river then. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Im not an expert but isnt the differance that the river moves in a direction relative to u and earth (wind) itselfe? (or something)

The conveyorbelt is stationary, no matter how fast it spins.

Compare it to a carrier for ex. Carrier is moving down wind thus producing lift on a ac.

Conveyor belt doesnt...no matter how fast i spins. It just spins the ac`s wheels real fast...it doesnt produce lift.


Like those Youtube vids from IL2 where a spit does a vertical takoff from a carrier becaus the carrier moves along at 150-200 km/h.


I think?

Bremspropeller
12-14-2007, 05:18 AM
The initial question mentioned, the belt would always run just as fast as the wheels in just that moment (-1 +1 = 0).
So if the plane would try to move, the belt would counter-move.
Assuming an infinite friction of the wheels (no skidding), the plane won't take off, no matter if it's powered by prop, jet or rocket.

Urufu_Shinjiro
12-14-2007, 05:59 AM
Ok, that might work, if your airplane is CAR! The airplane is puled through the air by the prop, it doesn't matter what the wheels are on it's going to move forward as long as it's not physically held back. A conveyor belt moving underneath will not hold it back, just make the wheels spin faster.

midgie
12-14-2007, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The initial question mentioned, the belt would always run just as fast as the wheels in just that moment (-1 +1 = 0).


The original question stated the conveyor moves at the same speed as the plane (not the wheels). The wheels therefore only travel twice as fast as normal.

The conveyor could not move the same speed as the wheels as the wheels speed is the conveyor speed + the planes speed and as soon as the plane moves at all the conveyor/wheel speed would both have to instantly be infinity....

Original thread is here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8551099804/p/1) correct answer is in third post. If you disagree please read entire thread before posting for the sake of everyones sanity.

BaronUnderpants
12-14-2007, 08:02 AM
Aaah, ok.

I assumed that the question was "can the aircraft take of with the help of the conveyorbelt without actually moving forward" sort of thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Like the Spit and carrier ex.


Dhuuu.

Bremspropeller
12-14-2007, 09:30 AM
The original question stated the conveyor moves at the same speed as the plane (not the wheels). The wheels therefore only travel twice as fast as normal.


No, it said the wheels, not the plane.


The conveyor could not move the same speed as the wheels as the wheels speed is the conveyor speed + the planes speed and as soon as the plane moves at all the conveyor/wheel speed would both have to instantly be infinity....


We're talking about physics here.
In physics, the term "infinite" ain't a no-go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The plane won't move forward, not even a single inch.

midgie
12-14-2007, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

No, it said the wheels, not the plane.

The riddle in Georgeo's post that I linked (and every other time I've heard it) state the planes speed. As the myth busters episode hasn't been shown I don't know what they use so went with Georgeo's.


We're talking about physics here.
In physics, the term "infinite" ain't a no-go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

When I last studied physics (which is a while ago now, things may have changed) the standard model of physics stated that it was impossible to go faster than the speed of light (e=mc2 blah blah). So although "infinite" ain't a no go "infinite speed" is. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Alright some higher level paradigms explore the possibilty but as we're talking planes and conveyor belts I thought I'd stick to the standard model, otherwise the answer to any question becomes yes, no and maybe depending on the state of the observor and which universe(s) it is occuring in.




The plane won't move forward, not even a single inch.

If you've reread the original thread and still believe it, fair do's, I'll just wait till the episode is shown as another 17 pages of this and http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

DrHerb
12-14-2007, 10:48 AM
The aircraft will take off, there is no direct force driven into the wheels. The conveyor will not move. End of story. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
12-14-2007, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The original question stated the conveyor moves at the same speed as the plane (not the wheels). The wheels therefore only travel twice as fast as normal.


No, it said the wheels, not the plane.


The conveyor could not move the same speed as the wheels as the wheels speed is the conveyor speed + the planes speed and as soon as the plane moves at all the conveyor/wheel speed would both have to instantly be infinity....


We're talking about physics here.
In physics, the term "infinite" ain't a no-go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The plane won't move forward, not even a single inch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The plane will take off of course, the wheels will just be moving twice as fast, and that makes absolutely no difference to an aeroplane, the wheels can spin as fast as they like!

Bremspropeller
12-14-2007, 01:10 PM
If there's an infinite friction between the wheels and the belt (as stated), the plane won't move.
It could only move by skidding, which is ruled out by the infinite friction.

No movement, no lift, no lift-off.



If you've reread the original thread and still believe it, fair do's, I'll just wait till the episode is shown as another 17 pages of this and

Can we produce tyres with infinite friction? No we can't.
Van we produce a belt that will always travel at exacty the same speed as the plane? No.
Can we produce a belt that will go fast enough?
No.

Theoretical physics and RL are two different things.

Jambock_Dolfo
12-14-2007, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
If there's an infinite friction between the wheels and the belt (as stated), the plane won't move.
It could only move by skidding, which is ruled out by the infinite friction.

No movement, no lift, no lift-off.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If you've reread the original thread and still believe it, fair do's, I'll just wait till the episode is shown as another 17 pages of this and

Can we produce tyres with infinite friction? No we can't.
Van we produce a belt that will always travel at exacty the same speed as the plane? No.
Can we produce a belt that will go fast enough?
No.

Theoretical physics and RL are two different things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said the belt matches the wheels speed.
This is impossible, and makes no sense. It would only be possible on a car, which has traction on the wheels.
If you have some sort of thrust on the airplane (propeller, jet, rocket, whatever) you will have a force applied. The belt can not transmit any force to the airplane, for the wheels are articulated axis, that can not transmit torque. They (wheels)only support the weight of the airplane. And spin.
So if you hold the plane stationary and spin the conveyor belt the wheels and the belt will have the same speed. But this is without any thrust applied to the airframe. If you have an engine of any sort on the airplane it will produce thrust. A resultant force. And you WILL have an acceleration.
Of course this means the wheels will spin faster than the belt. The belt can not match the wheels speed if we have thrust. (repeating myself already)

Every single variation of this problem I read stated the belt matched the PLANE speed.

Trying to have it match the wheels speed would be nonsense. And impossible.

-dolfo

LEBillfish
12-14-2007, 02:22 PM
ahhh, georgeo76.....hehe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Anywho to those arguing......Using our humble sim as an example, If I speed up a carrier to 200 km/h, wheels of the plane chocked, will not the plane simply lift off the deck engine off? (should if it doesn't)....Yet if I unchock the plane, then move the carrier quick enough to break away from the friction, will not the plane roll off the back?

Unpowered the wheels have nothing to do with it....as if friction alone could slow the plane enough it could not take off ......Then it would never be able to in the first place EVER even off a runway. The conveyor and its speed irrelavent, as it would only be upon the failure of the bearings in the wheels incresing friction that could "possibly stop it".

mortoma
12-14-2007, 03:43 PM
I have never been impressed with the job the guys/girls on Mythbusters do. I can debunk some of the debunking they have done on several subjects. There are major holes and flaws in they way they have investigated some subject matter, to say the least. I could go on to explain some of the flaws in their investigations and the whys and wherefores, but I would have to type for a long time to explain most of it. The show can be entertaining but the scientific errors they have committed several times that I know of causes me to switch the channel most of the time. Let's just say I'm not impressed and that should suffice.

DxyFlyr
12-14-2007, 03:58 PM
This thread is cracking me up. What does infinite friction mean? Is that done with super glue?

buzzsaw1939
12-14-2007, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
I have never been impressed with the job the guys/girls on Mythbusters do. I can debunk some of the debunking they have done on several subjects. There are major holes and flaws in they way they have investigated some subject matter, to say the least. I could go on to explain some of the flaws in their investigations and the whys and wherefores, but I would have to type for a long time to explain most of it. The show can be entertaining but the scientific errors they have committed several times that I know of causes me to switch the channel most of the time. Let's just say I'm not impressed and that should suffice.

+1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

HARRIER_401
12-15-2007, 11:10 AM
The only reason to watch Mythbusters is Keri Byron. She is hot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DuxCorvan
12-15-2007, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by HARRIER_401:
The only reason to watch Mythbusters is Keri Byron. She is hot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JisgLhWghRQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykhSLNlx3n0&feature=related

han freak solo
12-15-2007, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HARRIER_401:
The only reason to watch Mythbusters is Keri Byron. She is hot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JisgLhWghRQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JisgLhWghRQ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

She's a myth worth busting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DxyFlyr
12-15-2007, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
I have never been impressed with the job the guys/girls on Mythbusters do. I can debunk some of the debunking they have done on several subjects. There are major holes and flaws in they way they have investigated some subject matter, to say the least. I could go on to explain some of the flaws in their investigations and the whys and wherefores, but I would have to type for a long time to explain most of it. The show can be entertaining but the scientific errors they have committed several times that I know of causes me to switch the channel most of the time. Let's just say I'm not impressed and that should suffice.


I don't watch a whole lot of TV. But I've seen enough to know that it's not a very good source for factual scientific discourse. It's an entertainment tool. That's about it. If you're looking for facts and careful documentation, you're perusing the wrong medium. I like mythbusters 'cause those guys are funny. I've never heard them claim to be more than the ex movie effects types that they are. It's quasi-science and that's how it is presented.

It would be great if TV shows could be held to a higher educational standard, but I bet it would be a lot more boring.