quote:

Originally posted by upisoft1:

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:
Confirm what? That when YOU are given specific information YOU can't follow it? That you simply must change the information? I can whole heartedly agree to that.
Remember what this discussion is about...I posted three views and you are I suppose replying to one of them but if you change the given are you still participating in the discussion?

I follow the information very well. You never defined how you're going to measure the speed of the belt in clear text. I had to assume that you measure the speed of the belt relative to some unmovable part of the device. If I also assume that the device is mounted on the ground, then I'm correct that you measure the speed of the belt relative to the ground.

But you see there are two assumptions here. That's why I need confirmation.

quote:

Originally posted by Quadrajet:

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:

quote:

Originally posted by Quadrajet:

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:
poor choice of words.
as you sorta stated and I agreed with....if it does move relative to the ground/air then the belt can't do its job and the attempt is broken because of setup violation.
You hit the big red STOP button.

No, you're changing the myth itself.
The belt's only "job" is to rotate backwards, not "hold the plane back", you're READING that into the wording, which is the wrong thing to do.

It doesn't say "with the plane staying stationary", it simply asks "can the plane take off". YOU are assuming the plane will stay stationary.

BTW, if the plane is moving at 25mph FORWARD (the track has to match it backward remember), how can the plane be going zero?

We are NOT talking about wheel speed, we are talking about PLANE SPEED, which an observer with a radar gun would track.

now where did I say the that the belt's job was to "hold the plane back"? Where?

You said it right here - "if it does move relative to the ground/air then the belt can't do its job", which means "hold the plane back", because you think that the belt WILL hold the plane back. If you didn't, you wouldn't be a no fly.

quote:

Originally posted by Quadrajet:
Graham, please just think about this for a minute or two.

- Strap a rocket onto a skateboard.

- Place that skateboard on a treadmill.

- Fire the rocket with the treadmill's track matching the speed exactly.

Q - What will the rocket do? Stay in one place or go shooting off the front of the treadmill?

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:

quote:

Originally posted by upisoft1:

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:
Confirm what? That when YOU are given specific information YOU can't follow it? That you simply must change the information? I can whole heartedly agree to that.
Remember what this discussion is about...I posted three views and you are I suppose replying to one of them but if you change the given are you still participating in the discussion?

I follow the information very well. You never defined how you're going to measure the speed of the belt in clear text. I had to assume that you measure the speed of the belt relative to some unmovable part of the device. If I also assume that the device is mounted on the ground, then I'm correct that you measure the speed of the belt relative to the ground.

But you see there are two assumptions here. That's why I need confirmation.

internally.....what is there to assume? where does the ground come into play internally?

quote:

Originally posted by upisoft1:

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:

quote:

Originally posted by upisoft1:

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:
Confirm what? That when YOU are given specific information YOU can't follow it? That you simply must change the information? I can whole heartedly agree to that.
Remember what this discussion is about...I posted three views and you are I suppose replying to one of them but if you change the given are you still participating in the discussion?

I follow the information very well. You never defined how you're going to measure the speed of the belt in clear text. I had to assume that you measure the speed of the belt relative to some unmovable part of the device. If I also assume that the device is mounted on the ground, then I'm correct that you measure the speed of the belt relative to the ground.

But you see there are two assumptions here. That's why I need confirmation.

internally.....what is there to assume? where does the ground come into play internally?

I just want to know if you measure speeds in the same reference frame or not. I still don't know. Maybe you said it earlier and I didn't read it, or didn't understand it. OK? Will you please tell me how do you measure the speeds?

quote:

Originally posted by upisoft1:
I never said that. I said "the BELT is not moving relative to the BELT". There is no "plane" in that sentence.

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:

quote:

Originally posted by Quadrajet:

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:

quote:

Originally posted by Quadrajet:

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:
poor choice of words.
as you sorta stated and I agreed with....if it does move relative to the ground/air then the belt can't do its job and the attempt is broken because of setup violation.
You hit the big red STOP button.

No, you're changing the myth itself.
The belt's only "job" is to rotate backwards, not "hold the plane back", you're READING that into the wording, which is the wrong thing to do.

It doesn't say "with the plane staying stationary", it simply asks "can the plane take off". YOU are assuming the plane will stay stationary.

BTW, if the plane is moving at 25mph FORWARD (the track has to match it backward remember), how can the plane be going zero?

We are NOT talking about wheel speed, we are talking about PLANE SPEED, which an observer with a radar gun would track.

now where did I say the that the belt's job was to "hold the plane back"? Where?

You said it right here - "if it does move relative to the ground/air then the belt can't do its job", which means "hold the plane back", because you think that the belt WILL hold the plane back. If you didn't, you wouldn't be a no fly.

Wrong. The belt's jobs are to match the speed of the plane and travel in the opposite direction of the plane. speed being taken as magnitude and in same units (example,mph)
I'm not surprised by your changes.

If you read the comprehesive example you would realize that i am both a fly and no-fly.
I can only assume you didn't by looking at your posts.

quote:

Originally posted by ericw66:

quote:

Originally posted by upisoft1:
I never said that. I said "the BELT is not moving relative to the BELT". There is no "plane" in that sentence.

Correct. And it has as much meaning as "The apple is red." in this discussion.

Plane is on the belt
Plane moves forward at X speed.
Belt moves backwards at X speed.

Does the plane take off?

That's the myth. There's no belt is not moving in relation to the belt, nor is there anything else. Its just the myth.
There's no statement about "The plane must be held by back the belt."

Basically, it boils down to a simple set of possibilities.

1) If the plane can move forward, it will take off. A plane that can move forward will eventually reach its take off speed and take off obviously.

2) If the plane cannot move forward, it won't. A non-moving plane (outside of rocket power, etc) cannot take off. That's obvious too.

The "trick" of the myth is that it fools people into thinking that the belt can actually appreciably slow the plane down to zero JUST by matching the planes forward speed in reverse. It cannot. It'd have to move many many times faster to impart enough backwards force to hold back a plane even at idle throttle, let alone the super-sonic speeds it'd have to attain to "hold back" that little light plane, I can't imagine a cessna.

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:
Object is on a belt
Object moves foward at X speed.
Belt moves backwards at X speed.

Would it not be a safe assumption to measure the speed of the object, that is on a belt, as its speed on the belt?

That is the essential difference between the two groups as I see it.
Do you treat the plane on the belt as a plane in the normal manner, ie airspeed
or
do you treat the plane on the belt as any object on a belt in the normal manner, ie speed as measured on the belt.

quote:

Originally posted by Quadrajet:
I'm certainly not going to read through the posting history of every newperson I see here, especially when they are arguing a side that is incorrect.

If you see the "fly" position, then you would realize that the no fly position is futile and incorrect (using the original myth). In that case why bother discussing the no fly position?

You're dancing around the point that the plane will fly every single time.

*edited to strike the word new*

quote:

Would it not be a safe assumption to measure the speed of the object, that is on a belt, as its speed on the belt

quote:

Originally posted by roofingguy:
Graham, I'd hate to be misunderstanding you or misquoting you, but...

With the wheel speed/broken conditions setup that you refer to, where does it say the plane can't move?

"A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyor). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyor moves in the opposite direction. This conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?"

Sentence 1: Let's see... plane is standing on conveyor, so far so good.
Sentence 2: Let's see... plane moves one way, conveyor moves the other (this implies from the same fixed reference, and not referenced to each other, but I'll ignore that)
Sentence 3: Belt tracks plane and adjusts its own speed; yes "speed" is ambiguous... airspeed/absolute speed makes the most sense, but I'll go with wheel speed for now, despite my previous arguments against this.
Sentence 4: "Can the plane take off?" Hang on. Can the plane take off, not can the plane take off without breaking the control system by having absolute motion. The plane CAN take off. The control system keeps tuning the belt speed endlessly as the plane moves, but it never says the control system instantaneously has the speeds exactly match -- just that they are tuned to exactly match. It's not our fault that the control system can't work as promised if you use wheel speed and the plane moves -- it can keep "tuning" all it wants and it will never catch up or hold the plane back. The plane still CAN take off.

It never says "the wheelspeed will always and forever exactly match the belt speed", merely that the plane speed is tracked and the belt is tuned to it.

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:

quote:

Originally posted by ericw66:

quote:

Originally posted by upisoft1:
I never said that. I said "the BELT is not moving relative to the BELT". There is no "plane" in that sentence.

Correct. And it has as much meaning as "The apple is red." in this discussion.

Plane is on the belt
Plane moves forward at X speed.
Belt moves backwards at X speed.

Does the plane take off?

That's the myth. There's no belt is not moving in relation to the belt, nor is there anything else. Its just the myth.
There's no statement about "The plane must be held by back the belt."

Basically, it boils down to a simple set of possibilities.

1) If the plane can move forward, it will take off. A plane that can move forward will eventually reach its take off speed and take off obviously.

2) If the plane cannot move forward, it won't. A non-moving plane (outside of rocket power, etc) cannot take off. That's obvious too.

The "trick" of the myth is that it fools people into thinking that the belt can actually appreciably slow the plane down to zero JUST by matching the planes forward speed in reverse. It cannot. It'd have to move many many times faster to impart enough backwards force to hold back a plane even at idle throttle, let alone the super-sonic speeds it'd have to attain to "hold back" that little light plane, I can't imagine a cessna.

Object is on a belt
Object moves foward at X speed.
Belt moves backwards at X speed.

Would it not be a safe assumption to measure the speed of the object, that is on a belt, as its speed on the belt?

That is the essential difference between the two groups as I see it.
Do you treat the plane on the belt as a plane in the normal manner, ie airspeed
or
do you treat the plane on the belt as any object on a belt in the normal manner, ie speed as measured on the belt.

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:


http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/94019...491987059#2491987059

quote:

Originally posted by ericw66:

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:
Object is on a belt
Object moves foward at X speed.
Belt moves backwards at X speed.

Would it not be a safe assumption to measure the speed of the object, that is on a belt, as its speed on the belt?

That is the essential difference between the two groups as I see it.
Do you treat the plane on the belt as a plane in the normal manner, ie airspeed
or
do you treat the plane on the belt as any object on a belt in the normal manner, ie speed as measured on the belt.

No, it is not a safe assumption. Switching a point of reference like that is not implied. Besides, a belt cannot move backwards at the same speed as a plane moves forward (the myth) unless the plane is not moving at all. Which means the belt is not moving at all. And since the myth is talking about "moving" things...

quote:

Originally posted by graham75:

quote:

Originally posted by Quadrajet:
I'm certainly not going to read through the posting history of every newperson I see here, especially when they are arguing a side that is incorrect.

If you see the "fly" position, then you would realize that the no fly position is futile and incorrect (using the original myth). In that case why bother discussing the no fly position?

You're dancing around the point that the plane will fly every single time.

*edited to strike the word new*

this particular side is not incorrect. the original myth is ambigious in its defining the "plane speed".
I discuss the no-fly position because....what is there to discuss with the fly position, airspeed = fly and that is usually agreed with when stated that way.