# The Great "conveyor Belt" Question



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

*PDX_Doug or Thor --- Who will Win?*​
*Vote now...bragging rights are on the line.*

Heck Yea...that plane will soar into the sky3954.93%Not a chance....crash and burn baby!3245.07%


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

Gary (Fire44) found the follow link for Myth Busters. We will finally find out if the plane will take off or not on 1/30/08:

http://dsc.discovery.com/video/?playerId=2...tleId=348411075

Vote now for your choice.


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

The important thing to remember here is, we are all family.
Please try not to gloat too much at Thor's expense when that airplane soars into the air.









Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## Moosegut (Sep 24, 2005)

We should all be in the chat room on that night.

Uh, by the way Sparky - three people post and only two votes? I voted. Which one of you two did not vote?

On edit: There were only two votes when I posted - so either Doug or Jim did not vote at that time. C'mon, fess up - just teasing. It's moot now with more votes coming in.


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

I see four votes at this point.









I like the Chat Room idea... That could be fun!









Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

Chat room will be busy that night...right up to the deciding moment....then one side will mysteriously go quite.


----------



## Fire44 (Mar 6, 2005)

I think it is staying on the ground with your luggage.......


----------



## BoaterDan (Jul 1, 2005)

I think the model will not fly because they won't conduct the experiment correctly, as I said in the other thread.

The real plane will fly off into the wild blue yonder if they do it right. If they do it wrong somebody may end up at the hospital.


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

ahh folks...I am watching the episode right now!


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

egregg57 said:


> ahh folks...I am watching the episode right now!


Hope you settle on a really good price







!


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

wolfwood said:


> ahh folks...I am watching the episode right now!


Hope you settle on a really good price







!
[/quote]

Betcha a beer it takes off....


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

egregg57 said:


> ahh folks...I am watching the episode right now!


Hope you settle on a really good price







!
[/quote]

Betcha a beer it takes off....
[/quote]
NOT FROM ME!









I figured you could bring in the bidders 'cuz YOU'D have the answer and THEY would want it ahead of tiem...yanno, maybe to re-calculate their prior statements. Just thought maybe you might could generate some extra income towards that purchase of a new OB for Tina....but...um... never mind.


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

wolfwood said:


> ahh folks...I am watching the episode right now!


Hope you settle on a really good price







!
[/quote]

Betcha a beer it takes off....
[/quote]
NOT FROM ME!









I figured you could bring in the bidders 'cuz YOU'D have the answer and THEY would want it ahead of tiem...yanno, maybe to re-calculate their prior statements. Just thought maybe you might could generate some extra income towards that purchase of a new OB for Tina....but...um... never mind.








[/quote]

So...in other words you're skeered...... Don't be skeered..bet the beer Wolfie! Put the foam in the ring..the hops on da barrel! C'mon! The ne Outbacks coming...sooner orlater but beer first!! ante up!

I am in ...one Sam Adams Boston Lager....


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

egregg57 said:


> I am in ...one Sam Adams Boston Lager....


...thought the bet was for beer.


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

egregg57 said:


> ahh folks...I am watching the episode right now!


Hope you settle on a really good price







!
[/quote]

Betcha a beer it takes off....
[/quote]
NOT FROM ME!









I figured you could bring in the bidders 'cuz YOU'D have the answer and THEY would want it ahead of tiem...yanno, maybe to re-calculate their prior statements. Just thought maybe you might could generate some extra income towards that purchase of a new OB for Tina....but...um... never mind.








[/quote]So...in other words you're skeered...... Don't be skeered..bet the beer Wolfie! Put the foam in the ring..the hops on da barrel! C'mon! The ne Outbacks coming...sooner orlater but beer first!! ante up!

I am in ...one Sam Adams Boston Lager....
[/quote]
Nope - my chips (and beer) are all spoken for. You'll have to find another sucker player


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Oregon_Camper said:


> I am in ...one Sam Adams Boston Lager....


...thought the bet was for beer.








[/quote]
Psst! Jim...

Have to be careful here. You and I both know the best beer in North America hails from the PNW... But these crazy Easterners seems to be pretty loyal to this Sam Adams stuff. This could get ugly! Maybe if we simultaneously lifted a pint of Widmer Hef in their direction...









Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

PDX_Doug said:


> I am in ...one Sam Adams Boston Lager....


...thought the bet was for beer.








[/quote]
Psst! Jim...

Have to be careful here. You and I both know the best beer in North America hails from the PNW... But these crazy Easterners seems to be pretty loyal to this Sam Adams stuff. This could get ugly! Maybe if we simultaneously lifted a pint of Widmer Hef in their direction...









Happy Trails,
Doug
[/quote]

Liike this?


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Exactly like that!

(Now the rest of the day is going to seem reallllllllllllllly long though)

Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

PDX_Doug said:


> Exactly like that!
> 
> (Now the rest of the day is going to seem reallllllllllllllly long though)
> 
> ...


Think you're starting to see the benefits of working from home....


----------



## H2oSprayer (Aug 5, 2006)

Um...Let's think logically about this for a second while I drink my









"Lift is generated by an airfoil and depends on such factors as the speed of the airflow, the density of the air, and the total area of the airfoil". NOTE: speed of AIRFLOW. If an airplane is sitting still, where is the lift that is required to get it off the ground? My vote; crash & burn baby!!


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> I am in ...one Sam Adams Boston Lager....


...thought the bet was for beer.







[/quote]
Psst! Jim...

Have to be careful here. You and I both know the best beer in North America hails from the PNW... But these crazy Easterners seems to be pretty loyal to this Sam Adams stuff. This could get ugly! Maybe if we simultaneously lifted a pint of Widmer Hef in their direction...









Happy Trails,
Doug[/quote]
Liike this?








[/quote]

NOW YOU'RE TALKING !!!!!!!


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

wolfwood said:


> I am in ...one Sam Adams Boston Lager....


...thought the bet was for beer.







[/quote]
Psst! Jim...

Have to be careful here. You and I both know the best beer in North America hails from the PNW... But these crazy Easterners seems to be pretty loyal to this Sam Adams stuff. This could get ugly! Maybe if we simultaneously lifted a pint of Widmer Hef in their direction...









Happy Trails,
Doug[/quote]
Liike this?








[/quote]

NOW YOU'RE TALKING !!!!!!!
[/quote]

Such a GREAT beer...and the brewery is only about 15 minutes away from my house...Yum!!


----------



## N7OQ (Jun 10, 2006)

H2oSprayer said:


> Um...Let's think logically about this for a second while I drink my
> 
> 
> 
> ...


An Aircraft develops lift in the front of its engines if it is a prop the front of the prop develops lift and if it is a jet engine the front of the engine develops lift and moves the aircraft down the runway when the speed of the aircraft is fast enough the wings will create enough lift to get the aircraft airborne. A conveyor belt has no effect on how fast the plane will go, it will just cause the wheels to turn faster.


----------



## Santa (Dec 21, 2007)

You wanna borrow Rudolph???


----------



## freefaller25 (Mar 19, 2006)

I didn't see the first post. 
Are we talking about a plane stationary with respect to the gound and the wheels rolling on a treadmill
or 
are we talking about a plane propelled forward with respect to the gound by a treadmill
or
something else

and the question is will the plane leave the gound, right?

Sorry to be a late arrival, don't have the video player loaded for the discovery site.

Oh, and at least the beer is in the correct glass, that is a good start (but leave the lemon out for me).

Tony


----------



## bpedrotty (Nov 3, 2006)

After watching the video...

No Chance Paddles!

_Assuming_ they in fact, can precisely match the truck speed to the expected take-off speed of the plane. That leaves me with two questions.

1- Have they accounted for having no Pitot/Static info from the plane to give a speed to match.
2- Have they accounted for Kts vs MPH.

I assume they are going to use the cones next to the plane to judge if there is any forward momentum but I would guess it will not take much in order to get that plane airborne. I have not flown anything that small. I have seen highly modified bush planes take off is as little as 80-100 ft. of forward progress.

I am now looking forward to watching...

Walleye


----------



## Moosegut (Sep 24, 2005)

Saturday morning; up at 5:30 a.m.; Christmas in two days; tree lighted up; coffee in hand; all else snuggled in bed. What to do - enjoy the tree, the coffee, the solitude, and log on to Outbackers where I see this thread again. Google. Stumble onto The Straight Dope website. What a great site I've found for all the trivia intelligentsia who like to deal in the inane (Yeah - me included). Below is an excerpt from the page about the plane. It took me about an hour to get it posted because I began reading all kinds of stuff on the site.

I was hesitant to post about the site because I didn't want to interfere with the betting.







But I know there are those LIKE JOHN of Rizfam fame







who will not believe until they see it.

First the obvious-but-wrong answer. The unwary tend to reason by analogy to a car on a conveyor belt--if the conveyor moves backward at the same rate that the car's wheels rotate forward, the net result is that the car remains stationary. An aircraft in the same situation, they figure, would stay planted on the ground, since there'd be no air rushing over the wings to give it lift. But of course cars and planes don't work the same way. A car's wheels are its means of propulsion--they push the road backwards (relatively speaking), and the car moves forward. In contrast, a plane's wheels aren't motorized; their purpose is to reduce friction during takeoff (and add it, by braking, when landing). What gets a plane moving are its propellers or jet turbines, which shove the air backward and thereby impel the plane forward. What the wheels, conveyor belt, etc, are up to is largely irrelevant. Let me repeat: Once the pilot fires up the engines, the plane moves forward at pretty much the usual speed relative to the ground--and more importantly the air--regardless of how fast the conveyor belt is moving backward. This generates lift on the wings, and the plane takes off. All the conveyor belt does is, as you correctly conclude, make the plane's wheels spin madly.



BoaterDan said:


> I think the model will not fly because they won't conduct the experiment correctly, as I said in the other thread.
> 
> The real plane will fly off into the wild blue yonder if they do it right. If they do it wrong somebody may end up at the hospital.


One problem I see in the Mythbusters clip is they say "we'll match the plane's forward speed" when the question states the conveyor belt will match the the speed of the wheels. If the pilot does not throttle up and applies only enough throttle to match the speed of the tarp, it won't go anywhere. But, if he throttles up to the normal RPMs needed for take off, he soars. Hope they do it right.


----------



## Moosegut (Sep 24, 2005)




----------



## dmbcfd (Sep 8, 2004)

I agree with Moosegut, it will fly.

Steve


----------



## H2oSprayer (Aug 5, 2006)

Unless I misunderstand the entire idea here, the plane will be pointed in an opposite direction of the conveyor belt movement, with its motor running, thus keeping the plane at a stand still. Is that correct? If so, I stick by my answer of crash and burn. I just don't see how any lift can be produced.


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Moosegut said:


> One problem I see in the Mythbusters clip is they say "we'll match the plane's forward speed" when the question states the conveyor belt will match the the speed of the wheels. If the pilot does not throttle up and applies only enough throttle to match the speed of the tarp, it won't go anywhere. But, if he throttles up to the normal RPMs needed for take off, he soars. Hope they do it right.


Not an engineer nor a pilot....

Does it matter that they did mention that they knew what speed the plane needed to be going to take off (under normal conditions) and that is the speed they are targeting for the conveyor belt, too? (Apparently increasing speed as the plane speed increases so as to match the 2 ... ) Presumably that means "how high the pilot needs to throttle up" not actually "how fast the plane is moving forward"..... as it doesn't seem that the plane can be moving forward until/unless it's airborne.


----------



## RizFam (Feb 25, 2006)

Moosegut said:


> I was hesitant to post about the site because I didn't want to interfere with the betting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is correct!


----------



## Moosegut (Sep 24, 2005)

RizFam said:


> I was hesitant to post about the site because I didn't want to interfere with the betting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is correct!








[/quote]







I knew that would be the case.


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

We have a VERY tight poll here.....

Only 1 vote difference (at this point in time)


----------



## bpedrotty (Nov 3, 2006)

Rule one: Read the full question...

I see a fatal flaw in my logic when considering the experiment in question. The imperfections of the conveyor aside, they plan on topping out the conveyor at a speed equal the the expected take-off speed of the plane (and there is some question of the direction they are going to move the conveyor). The plane will have enough thrust available to exceed that speed, thus gaining the required forward movement through the air mass to reach its take-off speed. As has been pointed out, the speed of the plane over the ground is irrelevant, it is the speed through the air mass. As long as the plane moves through the air mass at its take-off speed, it will take off. The associated ground speed required will be much higher than the air speed but that is the case with a tail wind too. What I had originally envisioned was a conveyor that would continue to accelerate in a manor that would successfully counter the aircraft's available thrust (in the opposite direction and at a rate to leave the aircraft in the same relative position on the ground). All fixed wing aircraft are earth bound until they can reach their respective velocity through the air mass required to get airborne. It is true that the engine imparts no drive on the wheels and they are therefore simply rolling along. At the same time, below a forward velocity high enough to create enough lift to get airborne, the Aircraft is stuck on the ground and therefore is affected by the surface it is rolling on. If that surface is moving in the opposite direction fast enough that the aircraft cannot overcome that movement and achieve enough forward movement through the air mass to get airborne, it will stay on the ground.
It is theoretically possible stop an aircraft's forward movement through an air mass by accelerating the surface it is rolling on in the opposite direction of travel if it is at a rate equal to that of the maximum thrust of the airplane (in other words keeping it at a relative stand still).

Illustrative examples:
1 - If one were to hold the brakes and run the engine to full power, the aircraft would not take off. It does not have enough thrust available to overcome the friction and also move the through the air mass fast enough to lift off.
2 - If the conveyor is going in the same direction as the aircraft, at 60 Kts and the aircraft needs 60Kts through the air mass to lift off, it will be doing roughly 120Kts ground speed when it reaches the 60Kts required to fly, and it goes airborne.
3 - If the conveyor is running opposite the direction of the aircraft and can accelerate at the same rate as, and to the equivalent maximum "air" speed, as the engines maximum thrust (say the engine is capable of creating maximum thrust equal to 200Kts at sea level and the conveyor can reach 200Kts of ground speed) then the airplane remains stationary relative to the air mass and it doesn't take off.

In long-winded conclusion, I am pretty sure I was wrong to vote no in this particular case. If they do not have enough conveyor power to overcome the aircraft engine, they will get airborne even if the conveyor is running in the opposite direction.

Still can't wait to see it though!


----------



## skippershe (May 22, 2006)

OK, I had to get in on this...I just voted with my gut feeling that the thing will fly









I will be watching to see what happens!!


----------



## N7OQ (Jun 10, 2006)

OK I guess I have ruffled a few feathers, got a Outback message from someone called Walleye who said I will never fly with him and another who said to called him a Idiot. No one here is a idiot and the pilot I referred to was a Airline pilot who was mentioned in Mythbusters. At this point I don't care if the plane takes off crashes and burns or just sit there.

Of course I know it will takeoff


----------



## Sayonara (Jul 23, 2007)

F L Y


----------



## Moosegut (Sep 24, 2005)

walleye said:


> 2 - If the conveyor is going in the same direction as the aircraft, at 60 Kts and the aircraft needs 60Kts through the air mass to lift off, it will be doing roughly 120Kts ground speed when it reaches the 60Kts required to fly, and it goes airborne.
> 3 - If the conveyor is running opposite the direction of the aircraft and can accelerate at the same rate as, and to the equivalent maximum "air" speed, as the engines maximum thrust (say the engine is capable of creating maximum thrust equal to 200Kts at sea level and the conveyor can reach 200Kts of ground speed) then the airplane remains stationary relative to the air mass and it doesn't take off.


Hmmm, I still disagree. The question states the wheels are freewheeling so they will have no effect on the plane. Of course, that assumes there is no friction whatsoever - from the rubber of the wheels on the conveyor, the bearings, axles, etc. - and that is impossible. But, if it were possible, and the conveyor actually matched the speed of the wheels, that would just mean that the wheels would stop turning and the plane would travel along with the wheels in the same position as the conveyor belt moved them along. But that would mean a wrinkle in the space/time continuum and it would take 1.21 gigawatts to make it happen - and it would fly.

So, here in the confines of reality it flies also.


----------



## 3LEES (Feb 18, 2006)

If the experimenters are planning to make the conveyor belt powered, as hinted in trying to "match the expected take off speed of the aircraft", then the experiment is NOT following the thesis. The conveyor belt is set to move at the exact rotation of the wheels of the aircraft..NOT the airspeed.

Therefore this experiement is flawed from the start.


----------



## bpedrotty (Nov 3, 2006)

Moosegut said:


> Hmmm, I still disagree. The question states the wheels are freewheeling so they will have no effect on the plane. Of course, that assumes there is no friction whatsoever - from the rubber of the wheels on the conveyor, the bearings, axles, etc. - and that is impossible. But, if it were possible, and the conveyor actually matched the speed of the wheels, that would just mean that the wheels would stop turning and the plane would travel along with the wheels in the same position as the conveyor belt moved them along. But that would mean a wrinkle in the space/time continuum and it would take 1.21 gigawatts to make it happen - and it would fly.
> 
> So, here in the confines of reality it flies also.


Uh Oh, we've headed into the space time continuum... Never a good place to be...








In a manner of speaking, aircraft wheels are free-wheeling since there is no direct drive applied to them. They are along for the ride. However, a fixed wing aircraft below the speed at which it can generate its own lift, is bound by the same basic physics principles as my truck, so I would argue that the wheels do in fact have an effect on the plane (if I hit the wheel brakes, the plane stops). If the conveyor (I envision a large treadmill working under its own power in the opposite direction of travel of the aircraft) is moving fast enough (which the one in the mythbusters experiment will not) to negate the forward movement (actual tire speed would need to be disregarded since it is irrelevant) of the aircraft through the air mass, it will not fly. No lift = No fly.

I willingly conceed that in this case, the plane will fly. I think the experiment has a few flaws, but I think the premise is fairly sound. If you can stop the aircraft from moving forward through the airmass, it will not generate lift and it will not fly.

Here's a chance to expose the flaws in my logic:
If I were to put a car on a treadmill and while standing off of the treadmill apply enough force (thrust) to roll the car forward at 3MPH, and the treadmill is running in the opposite direction at 3MPH, would my car move forward, backward, or stay in the same relative position compared to a lamp stand placed off of the treadmill and equal to the nose of the car?

If the correct answer is that it moves forward compared to the lamp stand, than the plane will fly even theoretically.
If the correct answer is that it stays stationary compared to the lamp stand, then it is theoretically possible though practically unlikely that the plane will fly.

I'm curious to know if this experiment fails on both the practical and theoretical levels or just the practical. My limited knowledeg of aerodynamics leads me to the certainty that if the airplane can be stopped from moving through the air mass, it will not fly. My really sketchy recollection of basic physics tells me that if I apply a force (treadmill movement) equal and opposite to another force (thrust provided by the aircraft engine) that the body being acted on will stay in one place. It so happens that these two forces meet at the wheels of the plane. But when no lift is imparted, the plane's force acts on the wheels (as well as the rest of the plane), and the treadmill, through contact friction, acts on the wheels as well, this ought to work out...


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

There is no doubt that if the aircraft is stopped from moving though the air mass, it will not develop lift, and will not fly. I think we all would agree to that. The trick of the question is whether the conveyor belt will stop the aircraft from from moving through the airmass, and it will not. Other than having to overcome a small additional amount of rolling resistance and bearing friction, which the aircraft will easily be able to do, the belt will have no effect. The plane will fly!

Unless, or course, the flux capacitor is installed with it's polarity reversed!









Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

PDX_Doug said:


> There is no doubt that if the aircraft is stopped from moving though the air mass, it will not develop lift, and will not fly. I think we all would agree to that. The trick of the question is whether the conveyor belt will stop the aircraft from from moving through the airmass, and it will not. Other than having to overcome a small additional amount of rolling resistance and bearing friction, which the aircraft will easily be able to do, the belt will have no effect. The plane will fly!
> 
> Unless, or course, the flux capacitor is installed with it's polarity reversed!
> 
> ...


...then the plane would submerge into the ground vs taking off...right?


----------



## dmbcfd (Sep 8, 2004)

The flux capacitor..............

The last time I saw a flux capacitor, it was on a flying Delorean, back in 1985.

Steve


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

dmbcfd said:


> The flux capacitor..............
> 
> The last time I saw a flux capacitor, it was on a *flying* Delorean, back in 1985.
> 
> Steve


And it did fly, didn't it?









Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

PDX_Doug said:


> The flux capacitor..............
> 
> The last time I saw a flux capacitor, it was on a *flying* Delorean, back in 1985.
> 
> Steve


And it did fly, didn't it?









Happy Trails,
Doug
[/quote]

Yea...but I don't recall it starting off on a conveyor belt.


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

PDX_Doug said:


> There is no doubt that if the aircraft is stopped from moving though the air mass, it will not develop lift, and will not fly. I think we all would agree to that. The trick of the question is whether the conveyor belt will stop the aircraft from from moving through the airmass, and it will not. Other than having to overcome a small additional amount of rolling resistance and bearing friction, which the aircraft will easily be able to do, the belt will have no effect. The plane will fly!
> 
> Unless, or course, the flux capacitor is installed with it's polarity reversed!
> 
> ...


I really do not understand what that means...all I know is that I smell bacon being served







Doug to you have one of those maid outfits??

Thor


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

Thor said:


> There is no doubt that if the aircraft is stopped from moving though the air mass, it will not develop lift, and will not fly. I think we all would agree to that. The trick of the question is whether the conveyor belt will stop the aircraft from from moving through the airmass, and it will not. Other than having to overcome a small additional amount of rolling resistance and bearing friction, which the aircraft will easily be able to do, the belt will have no effect. The plane will fly!
> 
> Unless, or course, the flux capacitor is installed with it's polarity reversed!
> 
> ...


I really do not understand what that means...all I know is that I smell bacon being served







Doug to you have one of those maid outfits??

Thor
[/quote]

*ROTFLMAO!!!*


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

All an airplane cares about is airspeed over it's wings. What the ground is doing is irrelevant.


----------



## Steelhead (Nov 14, 2005)

The answer will depend mostly on whether the airplane's muffler bearings have been well greased, and the piston return springs are still at the correct tension


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

Why do I have a feeling the Myth Buster program won't solve our debate? I don't think they are going to set it up like we have here.


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

Oregon_Camper said:


> Why do I have a feeling the Myth Buster program won't solve our debate? I don't think they are going to set it up like we have here.


In some ways I have to agree with you. I have a feel it will be a source of another 10 pages or so of meaniful discussion.

Thor


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Thor said:


> Why do I have a feeling the Myth Buster program won't solve our debate? I don't think they are going to set it up like we have here.


In some ways I have to agree with you. I have a feel it will be a source of another 10 pages or so of meaniful discussion.

Thor
[/quote]
Heh, Heh, Heh... Trying to weasel your way out of this Thor? Hey, pal... You're the one that threw down the guantlet!









Happy Trails,
Doug

(BTW, when you get into the French maid outfit, be sure to wear the little white lacey thingy on top of your head... That really works for me! <growl>)


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

PDX_Doug said:


> Why do I have a feeling the Myth Buster program won't solve our debate? I don't think they are going to set it up like we have here.


In some ways I have to agree with you. I have a feel it will be a source of another 10 pages or so of meaniful discussion.

Thor
[/quote]
Heh, Heh, Heh... Trying to weasel your way out of this Thor? Hey, pal... You're the one that threw down the guantlet!









Happy Trails,
Doug

(BTW, when you get into the French maid outfit, be sure to wear the little white lacey thingy on top of your head... *That really works for me*! <growl>)
[/quote]

TMI...TMI


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> Why do I have a feeling the Myth Buster program won't solve our debate? I don't think they are going to set it up like we have here.


In some ways I have to agree with you. I have a feel it will be a source of another 10 pages or so of meaniful discussion.

Thor
[/quote]
Heh, Heh, Heh... Trying to weasel your way out of this Thor? Hey, pal... You're the one that threw down the guantlet!









Happy Trails,
Doug

(BTW, when you get into the French maid outfit, be sure to wear the little white lacey thingy on top of your head... *That really works for me*! <growl>)
[/quote]

TMI...TMI

*JUST WHAT I WAS THINKING!!!!

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH!! The visuals.....
[/quote]
*


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

wolfwood said:


> OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH!! The visuals.....


...think you meant that in a bad way...right? Not 100% sure...


----------



## skippershe (May 22, 2006)

I'm laughing so hard right now that I'm crying!! OMG!!!


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

skippershe said:


> I'm laughing so hard right now that I'm crying!! OMG!!!


it's ok....let it out.


----------



## Moosegut (Sep 24, 2005)

I had no idea what TMI meant and had to give it a really hard think. Then, the image of Thor standing in a puddle in his boxers hit me and I shuddered. Yuck! Oh man, him in that french maid's outfit? I feel so dirty.


----------



## BoaterDan (Jul 1, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> Why do I have a feeling the Myth Buster program won't solve our debate? I don't think they are going to set it up like we have here.


That's what I said right after watching the show teaser. I think the test with the model will prove absolutely nothing, and it will be nearly impossible to conduct the real experiment accurately and safely.


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

BoaterDan said:


> Why do I have a feeling the Myth Buster program won't solve our debate? I don't think they are going to set it up like we have here.


That's what I said right after watching the show teaser. I think the test with the model will prove absolutely nothing, and it will be nearly impossible to conduct the real experiment accurately and safely.
[/quote]

Just fuel for another...300 posts. (not all from me of course)


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> Why do I have a feeling the Myth Buster program won't solve our debate? I don't think they are going to set it up like we have here.


That's what I said right after watching the show teaser. I think the test with the model will prove absolutely nothing, and it will be nearly impossible to conduct the real experiment accurately and safely.
[/quote]

Just fuel for another...300 posts. (not all from me of course)








[/quote]
...of course not


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

wolfwood said:


> Why do I have a feeling the Myth Buster program won't solve our debate? I don't think they are going to set it up like we have here.


That's what I said right after watching the show teaser. I think the test with the model will prove absolutely nothing, and it will be nearly impossible to conduct the real experiment accurately and safely.
[/quote]

Just fuel for another...300 posts. (not all from me of course)








[/quote]
...of course not








[/quote]

...i will however be "involved"


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

Doug, I am going to have to loose about 10-15lbs to look good in the oufit. But for you anything......









Just remember, I never give up...time will tell and Jan 30 is just around the corner.
















Thor

PS - I like my OJ fresh squeezed from Florida, my coffee from Tim's, my bacon free range and my eggs fresh that morning. You still have time to learn how to bake bread in your Outback...becuase nothing is better than fresh baked bread in the morning.


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Let me see if I have this straight Thor...

You want Fresh squeezed Bacon, coffee from Florida, free range orange juice and eggs laid by HatCity?
Oh yeah... and you want me to be in my Outback - baked - while I fix it all?

Okay...









Happy Trails,
Doug

(You know, I'm almost sorry I'm not going to be the one having to pay up!







)


----------



## BoaterDan (Jul 1, 2005)

PDX_Doug said:


> (You know, I'm almost sorry I'm not going to be the one having to pay up!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ya know, I think we could charge admission here to this event, no matter who loses, and raise enough money to support a major charity for a year. Now, which rally do we all need to start making plans to attend?


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

BoaterDan said:


> (You know, I'm almost sorry I'm not going to be the one having to pay up!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ya know, I think we could charge admission here to this event, no matter who loses, and raise enough money to support a major charity for a year. Now, which rally do we all need to start making plans to attend?
[/quote]

excellent point! we need to see this happen.


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

Well Doug put your $$$ where your ideas are. Let us have the Rally on the east side of the country. Put your Outback on the conveyor belt and turn it on....you should be able to attend without spending a dime on fuel









Thor


----------



## Paul and Amy (Jul 8, 2007)

hmm, too much for my intelligence to want to figure out. oy.


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

Thor said:


> Well Doug put your $$$ where your ideas are. Let us have the Rally on the east side of the country. Put your Outback on the conveyor belt and turn it on....you should be able to attend without spending a dime on fuel
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ROTFLMAO!!!


----------



## MaeJae (May 12, 2005)

Bernoulli's principle (OR) Newton's laws ...
Click here...

and here...

MaeJae


----------



## Brad1 (Jan 21, 2007)

Wouldn't it be just as easy to call Boeing at this point and ask someone.


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

Brad said:


> Wouldn't it be just as easy to call Boeing at this point and ask someone.


Sure, someone from the PNW. Take care of that please.


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

Nathan said:


> Wouldn't it be just as easy to call Boeing at this point and ask someone.


Sure, someone from the PNW. Take care of that please.








[/quote]

Doesn't BBB work or contract with Boeing?


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

Brad said:


> Wouldn't it be just as easy to call Boeing at this point and ask someone.


Now that makes sense... however; how much fun would that be









Thor


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Thor said:


> Wouldn't it be just as easy to call Boeing at this point and ask someone.


how much fun would that be








[/quote]
My thoughts exactly.









See Thor, we can agree on something!

Happy Trails,
Doug

P.S.: We're you planning on shaving your legs before donning the French Maid Outfit? I think it would help pull the whole thing together.


----------



## Lady Di (Oct 28, 2005)

So this is going to be on Jan 30?

Who could we get to take a sneak peek?

Surely there must be SOMEONE among all our members that could be in the know early.


----------



## Lady Di (Oct 28, 2005)

Scott,

II went really left field when I heard the TMI phrase.

I Thought the nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island 'cause I lived ten miles from there at that time.

Now maybe that's my excuse for anything and everything...


----------



## BoaterDan (Jul 1, 2005)

MaeJae said:


> Bernoulli's principle (OR) Newton's laws ...
> Click here...
> 
> and here...
> ...


Bernoulli's law has been quoted numerous times. Most seem to understand airflow over the wings is necessary for flight.

Some poor saps are just stuck thinking that the Speed Over Ground or how fast the wheels are spinning have anything to do with that, which is obviously and clearly not the case, as has been demonstrated here with example after example ad nauseum.


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

PDX_Doug said:


> Wouldn't it be just as easy to call Boeing at this point and ask someone.


how much fun would that be








[/quote]
My thoughts exactly.









See Thor, we can agree on something!

Happy Trails,
Doug

P.S.: We're you planning on shaving your legs before donning the French Maid Outfit? I think it would help pull the whole thing together.








[/quote]

Doug

LMAO - It is not the legs you need to worry about - It is the facial hair

Now in your case ... I am thinking about the low cut outfit... but that would mean you would need to shave your chest









Thor


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

Thor said:


> Wouldn't it be just as easy to call Boeing at this point and ask someone.


how much fun would that be








[/quote]
My thoughts exactly.









See Thor, we can agree on something!

Happy Trails,
Doug

P.S.: We're you planning on shaving your legs before donning the French Maid Outfit? I think it would help pull the whole thing together.








[/quote]

Doug

LMAO - It is not the legs you need to worry about - It is the facial hair

Now in your case ... I am thinking about the low cut outfit... but that would mean you would need to shave your chest









Thor
[/quote]

This is getting real interesting..


----------



## tdvffjohn (Mar 10, 2005)

or disgusting


----------



## MaeJae (May 12, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> Wouldn't it be just as easy to call Boeing at this point and ask someone.


how much fun would that be








[/quote]
My thoughts exactly.









See Thor, we can agree on something!

Happy Trails,
Doug

P.S.: We're you planning on shaving your legs before donning the French Maid Outfit? I think it would help pull the whole thing together.








[/quote]

Doug

LMAO - It is not the legs you need to worry about - It is the facial hair

Now in your case ... I am thinking about the low cut outfit... but that would mean you would need to shave your chest









Thor
[/quote]

This is getting real interesting..
[/quote]

Disclaimer...

If you have a weak stomach. DO NOT SCROLL!!!
(or if you are easily offended)

Who looks the best? Maybe we should start a new poll for this one!!!???!!!


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Do I have great legs, or what?
Man, I am hot!









Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

in my younger, much much much younger days, I "flew" a few times and don't recall a plane, or air, or wheels, or conveyor belt


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

While the Outbacker.com hat is always nice....it just doesn't go with the outfit.


----------



## skippershe (May 22, 2006)

Doxie-Doglover-Too said:


> in my younger, much much much younger days, I "flew" a few times and don't recall a plane, or air, or wheels, or conveyor belt


Why? Cause you were on your broom??


----------



## MaeJae (May 12, 2005)

skippershe said:


> in my younger, much much much younger days, I "flew" a few times and don't recall a plane, or air, or wheels, or conveyor belt


Why? Cause you were on your broom??








[/quote]

OMG... I just spit my Green Tea all over!!!


----------



## MaeJae (May 12, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> While the Outbacker.com hat is always nice....it just doesn't go with the outfit.


Does this work better for you?


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

skippershe said:


> in my younger, much much much younger days, I "flew" a few times and don't recall a plane, or air, or wheels, or conveyor belt


Why? Cause you were on your broom??








[/quote]

no silly, I didn't get a broom until a couple years ago!







Those have to be earned ya know!


----------



## skippershe (May 22, 2006)

MaeJae said:


> While the Outbacker.com hat is always nice....it just doesn't go with the outfit.


Does this work better for you?









[/quote]
The new "do" is definitely an improvement over the hat, but I still think that Thor is the winner...er, or is that loser?


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

skippershe said:


> in my younger, much much much younger days, I "flew" a few times and don't recall a plane, or air, or wheels, or conveyor belt


Why? Cause you were on your broom??








[/quote]
No - she was 'Yard Sailing' (inside joke, folks) and the wind speed through her hair provided her with all the 'lift' she needed........


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

skippershe said:


> The new "do" is definitely an improvement over the hat, but I still think that Thor is the winner...er, or is that loser?


I don't know - there's still something wrong..... Could it be just the bad color match with his eyebrows? NO!! WAIT!!! THAT'S IT!!!! DOUG HAS HAIR!!


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

I just finished having dinner and was sitting down to relax with a nice cup of tea. I decided to check out the forum and I almost ruined my laptop. I was laughing so hard that the tea came thru my nose onto the keyboard. I jumped up and spilled the rest of the tea on my lap. It was so worth it
















Thanks MaeJae
















Thor

PS

I do think black is my colour.

Doug you look hot in those fishnets


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Thor said:


> I was laughing so hard that the teat came thru my nose onto the keyboard.


Really?


----------



## Camping Fan (Dec 18, 2005)

MaeJae said:


> Disclaimer...
> 
> If you have a weak stomach. DO NOT SCROLL!!!
> (or if you are easily offended)
> ...


Dr. Smith, lost in Outbacker space!







Good find MaeJae.


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

wolfwood said:


> I was laughing so hard that the teat came thru my nose onto the keyboard.


Really?
[/quote]

Wolfie

Really!!! It wasn't pleasent. Luckly the tea wasn't too hot

THor


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

DANGER!!! DANGER!!!


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

MaeJae said:


> While the Outbacker.com hat is always nice....it just doesn't go with the outfit.


Does this work better for you?









[/quote]

There ya go!!!


----------



## Moosegut (Sep 24, 2005)

Oy! Now I'm gonna have nightmares.


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

Santa said:


> You wanna borrow Rudolph???


Yeah! now there is another thread! how do reindeer fly?


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

PDX_Doug said:


> Why do I have a feeling the Myth Buster program won't solve our debate? I don't think they are going to set it up like we have here.


In some ways I have to agree with you. I have a feel it will be a source of another 10 pages or so of meaniful discussion.

Thor
[/quote]
Heh, Heh, Heh... Trying to weasel your way out of this Thor? Hey, pal... You're the one that threw down the guantlet!









Happy Trails,
Doug

(BTW, when you get into the French maid outfit, be sure to wear the little white lacey thingy on top of your head... That really works for me! <growl>)
[/quote]

my morning coffee WAS in my mouth..........but hey, my sinus are awake now!


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

Moosegut said:


> I had no idea what TMI meant and had to give it a really hard think. Then, the image of Thor standing in a puddle in his boxers hit me and I shuddered. Yuck! Oh man, him in that french maid's outfit? I feel so dirty.


you only feel dirty because you LIKED it, c'mon admit it....we're all friends here and denial is unhealthy


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

Lady Di said:


> Scott,
> 
> II went really left field when I heard the TMI phrase.
> 
> ...


if we have to see Doug in a maids uniform running around waiting on someone, the public here will think there is a leak at Hanford !


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

Thor said:


> Wouldn't it be just as easy to call Boeing at this point and ask someone.


how much fun would that be








[/quote]
My thoughts exactly.









See Thor, we can agree on something!

Happy Trails,
Doug

P.S.: We're you planning on shaving your legs before donning the French Maid Outfit? I think it would help pull the whole thing together.








[/quote]

Doug

LMAO - It is not the legs you need to worry about - It is the facial hair

Now in your case ... I am thinking about the low cut outfit... but that would mean you would need to shave your chest









Thor
[/quote]

MaeJae, calling MaeJae! we need a new picture!


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

wolfwood said:


> in my younger, much much much younger days, I "flew" a few times and don't recall a plane, or air, or wheels, or conveyor belt


Why? Cause you were on your broom??








[/quote]
No - she was 'Yard Sailing' (inside joke, folks) and the wind speed through her hair provided her with all the 'lift' she needed........
[/quote]

and now that we live here in Tri-Cities, there is plenty of wind!


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

Moosegut said:


> Oy! Now I'm gonna have nightmares.


Puhleezee,like it's the FIRST Outbacker generated nightmare!


----------



## Moosegut (Sep 24, 2005)

Well, tonight's the night. Glad the new HD TV was installed yesterday.

P.S. And I promise not to gloat.


----------



## Camping Fan (Dec 18, 2005)

Moosegut said:


> Well, tonight's the night. Glad the new HD TV was installed yesterday.
> 
> P.S. And I promise not to gloat.


DVR is set to record in case I don't get home in time tonight.


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

Camping Fan said:


> Well, tonight's the night. Glad the new HD TV was installed yesterday.
> 
> P.S. And I promise not to gloat.


DVR is set to record in case I don't get home in time tonight.








[/quote]

I smell victory.....


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

egregg57 said:


> Well, tonight's the night. Glad the new HD TV was installed yesterday.
> 
> P.S. And I promise not to gloat.


DVR is set to record in case I don't get home in time tonight.








[/quote]
I smell victory.....
[/quote]
Is THAT what it is?


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

wolfwood said:


> Well, tonight's the night. Glad the new HD TV was installed yesterday.
> 
> P.S. And I promise not to gloat.


DVR is set to record in case I don't get home in time tonight.








[/quote]
I smell victory.....
[/quote]
Is THAT what it is?








[/quote]
I thought it was Napalm... In the morning... Oh that's right, it does smell like victory!









Listen here...

Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

I will be watching as well. Just to confrim can someone re-post time and channel - Hopefully it is the same in Canada

Does anyone what myth they are actually trying to bust???? Will it finally answer the question or is a spin-off of some sort???

Thor


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

*from MythBusters web site:* (doesn't say much about the actual "myth".....guess we'll all just have to watch and discuss it in class tomorrow







)

Jan 30, 9:00 pm
(60 minutes)
MythBusters 
Airplane on a Conveyor Belt

In this three-myth blockbuster the team takes a crash-course in remote controlled airplane flying, bug-out by testing the "cockroach survival" theory, then return to fraternity pranks with exploding cans of shaving cream.


----------



## ALASKA PFLOCK (Jun 24, 2007)

Oregon_Camper said:


> Gary (Fire44) found the follow link for Myth Busters. We will finally find out if the plane will take off or not on 1/30/08:
> 
> http://dsc.discovery.com/video/?playerId=2...tleId=348411075
> 
> Vote now for your choice.


Myth Busters need to look into some of the issues that are discussed here on the Outbackers site...starting with the OEM tires!


----------



## tdvffjohn (Mar 10, 2005)

Somehow no matter how good they prove or disprove it, the discussion here will never die


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

tdvffjohn said:


> Somehow no matter how good they prove or disprove it, the discussion here will never die


Agreed. And, unless they actually have a few OBers on the show.....could they EVER actually REALLY answer OUR questions? Heck!!! It's unlikely that anyone else would even THINK of our questions...


----------



## Dreamtimers (Mar 7, 2005)

Since people can write into Myth Busters to suggest myths for them to test...

What I want to know is: Which Outbacker sent this one in to them???








...
...
...
Anybody want to fess up???









Come on !... Come on!!! Confession is good for the soul!

Dave

P.S.

I'm sure it wouldn't have been







just to see someone in the "French maid" outfit.


----------



## skippershe (May 22, 2006)

tick tick tick....

I hate commercials!


----------



## OutbackPM (Sep 14, 2005)

If anyone is interested the myth is on Myth Busters right now!!

Pay close attention I think there maybe some wiggling to follow!!


----------



## skippershe (May 22, 2006)

Just saw it...

So is the verdict inconclusive, or is Thor going to don that french maid outfit and serve Doug breakfast with a smile???

The little plane did move forward









**on edit** I gotta go sling lattes at starbucks, guess i'll have to see what happened when i get home


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

MMMMWWWHHHAAAA HA!! HA!!


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Hmmm ....now, this shaving cream approach has some interesting possibilities.....


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

* I can't wait to see Thor in that Maid's Outfit!!!*


----------



## Moosegut (Sep 24, 2005)

Eh hem!


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

Ahh the sweet smell of victory.....and the look of French Chamber clothing!!!

Ahhh Yes!


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

egregg57 said:


> Ahh the sweet smell of victory.....and the look of French Chamber clothing!!!
> 
> Ahhh Yes!


Doug, does it smell like "napalm in the evening" too?


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Well...

I promised not to gloat.

And I really shouldn't.

But...










Sorry Thor. I couldn't resist.









Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Hey, where's the little white hat thingy???


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

tdvffjohn said:


> Somehow no matter how good they prove or disprove it, the discussion here will never die


No chance of that happening...


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

skippershe said:


> Just saw it...
> 
> So is the verdict inconclusive, or is Thor going to don that french maid outfit and serve Doug breakfast with a smile???
> 
> ...


What??? Tell them you're busy!!


----------



## N7OQ (Jun 10, 2006)

Well I don't want to say I told you so, but I told you so. The plane took off like the conveyor was not even there. The pilot even though it wouldn't take off. Now how long can Myth Busters stay on the air? Will they run out of myths?


----------



## Moosegut (Sep 24, 2005)

Didja notice that the poll yesterday was 29 tp 27 and today it's 33 to 27?







Hmm, I din't know we could wait until after seeing the results to vote. I wonder if I can do that in the upcoming election.


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

they were recently here in the Tri Cities doing a segment but my thinker is broken and I can't remember what it was about.


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

PDX_Doug said:


> Well...
> 
> I promised not to gloat.
> 
> ...


Good one Doug - But you have hurricaneplumbers mug shot









Thor


----------



## BoaterDan (Jul 1, 2005)

skippershe said:


> Just saw it...
> 
> So is the verdict inconclusive, or is Thor going to don that french maid outfit and serve Doug breakfast with a smile???
> 
> ...


I didn't expect them to really prove anything one way or the other.

I didn't watch the show... what exactly did they say? "Inconclusive" meaning something like they never got the plane to fly, but since they were able to make it move forward it should under the correct conditions?


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

BoaterDan said:


> Just saw it...
> 
> So is the verdict inconclusive, or is Thor going to don that french maid outfit and serve Doug breakfast with a smile???
> 
> ...


I didn't expect them to really prove anything one way or the other.

I didn't watch the show... what exactly did they say? "Inconclusive" meaning something like they never got the plane to fly, but since they were able to make it move forward it should under the correct conditions?
[/quote]

Oh, the plane flew! They tried it with a model first and it flew. Then they used a huge 2000' tarp attached to a truck and pulled that in the opposite direction of a full scale plane. The plane took off as if the tarp wasn't even there.

Eric


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

Well I loved the show - They did a great job but technically did not answer the question.

Let us look at the set-up

They measured the speed of the plane at take-off and set the conveyor belt at this speed
They setup cones along the runway to see distance required for take-off

Sor far so good but follow me on this one.

They also showed a treadmill with a car and plane and they pointed out that on a car's the wheels are powered and on a plane the wheels free wheeled. Which is also true but has nothing to do with the answering the question.

Let us look at this - a car on a conveyor belt and the wheels are spining at the exact same speed as a conveyor in the opposite direction...everyone agrees that the car will remain stationary. Now the car has to have some sort of force keeping the car stationary to overcome friction, inertia etc. This can be a motor driving the wheels, a finger behind the car, it can be a prop mounted on the front. It really does not matter. Now if the car moves forward or backwards on the conveyor...the wheels must be turning at a different speed than on the conveyor.

If the car wheels are spining at 50mph and the conveyor is running at 50mph everyone agrees that the car will remain stationary. If the car wheels are spining at 60mph and the conveyor at 50mph, the car will forward at 10mph. If the car wheels are turning at 40mph and conveyor at 50mph, the car will move backwards at 10mph. Still very straight forward

Now I agree that the plane does not drive the wheels,... so if a plane is flying, the wheels can turn at any speed and in direction and it will not effect the flight of the plane. In order for a plane to fly it must have lift and lift is created by air flow around the wing. Technically a stationary plane can fly, if enough wind passes over the wing. A strong wind could do this and that is why you see small planes tethered at airports.

Myth

There is no wind so.....

The conveyor belt is spinning at the exact speed as the wheels on a plane but in the opposite direction. The only way the plane can achieve lift is air moves over the wing. With no wind it can only be achieved by the plane physically moving or the prop generating enough air movement to creat lift. A plane that is tied so it cannot move will fly if the prop can generate enough airflow over the wings evenif it is stationary. If the prop cannot, the plane will just sit there. (wheels are not turning) I do not think a small prop plane can generate enough air flow ove the wing flight. If that were the case tha conveyor belt question would not be a good questions - hence we all agree that in order for plane to fly it must move forward in order to fly.

Since the plane is on the ground the wheels are touching the conveyor belt and they are to turning at the same speed as the conveyor but in the opposite direction the plane will not move forward regardless of the force applied. With the plane not moving, there is no air flow hence the plane will not fly.

If you put the plane on a conveyor belt and turn the conveyor belt at take-off speed of a plane, the plane will lift even without any power. This proves that the wheels and conveyor are depend on each other as long as they are tin contact with each other.

Finally

The planes wheels on myth busters did not spin at the same speed - The plane moved forward while the wheels were touching the conveyor. Because of this fact in my opinion they did not bust the myth. If the pilot of the plane adjusted his plane to remain between the cones .... this would have been the ture test to prove or disprove the myth.

I know there is going to be lots of discussion but that is how I understand the myth to be. It is like the 7 paper fold myth - the toilet paper fold length wise instead of each fold being 90 degrees from each other. In my opinion the toilet paper solution was brillant but not in the true spirit of the myth.
I see the same with the plane on the conveyor - The conveyor was set to take off speed in the opposite direction and the plane did move forward which means that the plane's wheels were turning faster than the conveyor belt. If you look at the wheel to the conveyor they were not at the same speed.

However:

If I lost the bet on a technical point on my understanding of the question than I have to live up to my bet which I will.

Thor


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

He's sticking to his guns...admirable.


----------



## jasonrebecca (Oct 30, 2007)

It was the cocroach surviving radiation, that was on last nights show as well.


----------



## BoaterDan (Jul 1, 2005)

Did it live, or turn into Teenage Mutant Ninja Cockroach?


----------



## BoaterDan (Jul 1, 2005)

You were doing so good here, this is the same line we've tried to follow time and time again.



Thor said:


> If I lost the bet on a technical point on my understanding of the question than I have to live up to my bet which I will.
> 
> Thor


No, you lost it on a technical point on your understanding of physics. LOL.

As has been said dozens of times now, nobody is claiming the plain will take off like a Harrier. It will need wind or forward motion create airflow over the wings. The simple point is that the wheels, and therefore the conveyor, have nothing whatsoever to do with whether that happens.

Somebody way back when made the perfect illustration, so I'll repeat it and then I'm done.

If you were standing next to somebody wearing rollerblades and standing on one of those airport moving sidewalk things... if you were holding on to them they wouldn't move. If you pulled them forward they'd move forward. It wouldn't matter if the converyor was moving back at the same speed, twice the speed, or not at all. If the flux capacitor kicks in and they time travel when you reach 2 mph, it will happen when you pull them fast enough to get to 2mph, REGARDLESS of what the conveyor is doing. That's precisely the same scenario with the plane. It WILL fly when it reaches x mph through the air. The prop thrust makes it reach that speed, regardless of the wheels/conveyor.


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

Dan is right. When you do calculations on Aircraft the speed you use is airspeed. It is the only source of lift, the dominant source of drag, and can affect the propulsion from your powerplant. Heck ground speed could be anything (it can also be zero if the wind speed is right!







). This is also the reason that planes take off and land while facing into the wind: it lowers thier ground speed so they can takeoff/land in a shorter distance.


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

Dan

Which way the force is applied make no difference - We are talking about the speed of the wheels not the speed of what they are attached too.

The roller blades on the moving sidewalk. Sidewalk is a 10mph

A person who grabs the railing will move forward at the same speed as the sidewalk and the wheels of the blades are 0phm but the person is moving 10mph. 0 mph (wheels) + 10mph (sidewalk) = 10mph (person)

A person who's blades are powered that is moving 10mph rolls onto the moving side walk in the same direction will be moving at 10mph (sidewalk) + 10(wheels) mph = 20 mph (person)

A person who's blades are not powered but has a fan strapped on his back is moving him at 10 mph rolls onto the moving sidewalk at 10mph will be travelling 20mph (same as above)

A person who's blades are powered at 10mph rolls onto a moving sidewalk turning in the opposite direction at 10mph will remain stationary as soon as he makes contact with the sidewalk. 10mph (wheels) + (-10mph sidewalk) = 0mph person

A person who's blades are not powered but has a fan on his back will have the same effect as above. If you disagree above than how fast should the person be travelling?

I know it is symantics, but isn't that the whole point and fun of this question









Thor

PS - Newton's 3rd law of motion

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

This law is exemplified by what happens if we step off a boat onto the bank of a lake: as we move in the direction of the shore, the boat tends to move in the opposite direction (leaving us facedown in the water, if we aren't careful!).

Plane and conveyor belt - Isn't this fun


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

I also found this .....

It seems to me that the speed of aircraft must be the simulated ground speed, as measured by its tires. Any movement forward on the conveyor will result in a slightly higher calculated ground speed - and the conveyor will therefore speed up in the opposite direction. So any movement relative to some fixed position means the same thing. Regardless of how power is applied to move the plane, if it moves relative to that fixed point, the simulated ground speed of the aircraft has necessarily increased - and the conveyor can always compensate instantaneously

The plane would not would forward hence no lift.

The debate is not wether or not the plane will fly , because everyone agrees forward motion of a plane will create lift. The 2 points of view come into play is wether or not the plane remains stationary. Since the wheels are contacting the belt any forward motion would mean that the wheels are turning faster than the conveyor belt.

It would have been really interesting with they showed the actual speed of the wheels

Thor


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Just a couple more things to consider...

When you look at the question the way Thor is approaching it, there is a bit of a paradox at play. If the plane wheels and the conveyor belt always moved at the same speed, and in opposite directions, then - in fact - *neither the plane or the belt could ever move*... at all... even a hair! By the logic being used, any movement of the planes tires would immediately and simultaneously be cancelled by the opposite movement of the belt, thus allowing no movement at all. And if the plane is not moving, then the belt would not be moving either. Yet, because of the thrust being applied by the engine (prop or jet), and Newtons 3rd law, the plane must move forward. By following Thor's logic, you would end up with a plane - of any power and performance (lets say an F-15) - at full power... after burners blazing... and yet sitting absolutely still on a conveyor belt runway that is itself absolutely still... Just sitting there.... No brakes.... No artificial means holding it back... Just sitting there... 40,000 lbs of thrust belching out the back... Just sitting there.

Remember, the belt only moves in response to the plane, and because of the belt, the plane can't move! *ANY* forward motion by the plane would break the rules of the argument. The plane can't move because of the belt, and the belt can't move because of the plane. A bit of a Catch-22, eh?

Now, speaking semantics again, let's go back to an argument I made some time ago. Personally, I don't believe it has any relevance to the question at hand, but is the argument that can pull the question together. The question states "The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, *moving in the opposite direction of rotation*." Notice the question does not say the belt moves in the opposite direction of the movement of the plane, but instead, the opposite direction of the rotation of the wheels. When you look at the rotation of the wheels - at the interface with the belt - the tread of the tires is moving from the front of the plane towards the back. If the plane is moving forward, the tops of the tires are moving forward, but the bottoms are moving backwards relative to the ground. Therefore, if the the belt is to counter the movement of the wheels (move in the opposite direction), the belt must, in fact, move forward. With the movement of the plane! In this way, the plane does move forward through the air, but relative to the ground (conveyor belt), it is not moving at all. It is, as far as the belt is concerned, stationary, with the wheels not turning, even though the plane continues to accelerate forward until there is enough airflow over the wings to achieve flight. Of course, now we have a situation where the belt is moving and the wheels are not (rotating), so that breaks the rules of the question as well.

Bottom line, the wording of the question is inherently flawed. Thus leading to the whole controversy in the first place. That said, IMHO, the tack the guys at MythBusters took is the logical approach to the question, and most closely addresses the spirit of the question, if not the exact wording.

Now, if you'll excuse me, my brain hurts and I need to go soak it in a bucket of ice for a while!









Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

Thor Wins...

Mythbusters did nothing to prove this case one why or the other. The plane was suppose to stay STILL...simple as that.


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

N7OQ said:


> Well I don't want to say I told you so, but I told you so. The plane took off like the conveyor was not even there. The pilot even though it wouldn't take off. Now how long can Myth Busters stay on the air? Will they run out of myths?


Phooey...they cheated! The plane is not suppose to move forward. If it moves forward of course it will achieve lift.


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Oregon_Camper said:


> Thor Wins...
> 
> Mythbusters did nothing to prove this case one why or the other. The plane was suppose to stay STILL...simple as that.


Original question:
_"Imagine an airplane is on the beginning of a massive conveyor belt, as wide and as long as a runway, and intends to take off. The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, moving in the opposite direction of rotation. 
There is no wind.

Can the plane take off?"_

Excuse me if I am missing something, but where does it say 'The plane will stay still'?









Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## tdvffjohn (Mar 10, 2005)

tdvffjohn said:


> Somehow no matter how good they prove or disprove it, the discussion here will never die


Did I call it or what









John

PS, Bill, I merged your thread with this one, to try and keep all the discussion in one thread if possible.


----------



## BoaterDan (Jul 1, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> Well I don't want to say I told you so, but I told you so. The plane took off like the conveyor was not even there. The pilot even though it wouldn't take off. Now how long can Myth Busters stay on the air? Will they run out of myths?


Phooey...they cheated! The plane is not suppose to move forward. If it moves forward of course it will achieve lift.
[/quote]

OF COURSE the plane is supposed to move forward. The whole point is that the conveyor has nothing to do with whether or not it does.


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

Now, if you'll excuse me, my brain hurts and I need to go soak it in a bucket of ice for a while!









Happy Trails,
Doug


Outstanding........ Are you forwarding this to Mythbusters or am I?

Regardless of arguement on details, any and all thrust, propulsion provided by the power plant pushing against the air mass. That's my story and I'm stickin to it!

Eric


----------



## BoaterDan (Jul 1, 2005)

PDX_Doug said:


> Just a couple more things to consider...
> 
> When you look at the question the way Thor is approaching it, there is a bit of a paradox at play.


I agree you're spot on Doug. I see now what Thor is trying to say... but I personally also think he's stretching the original intent. But then, I didn't write the question so we don't know.

Thor, you seem to have the significance of the problem be that no condition of movement can be created such that the wheels are spinning faster than the conveyor is moving, which seems to me to be turning the whole debate upside-down.

So, if we agree for a minute that the intent of the question makers wasn't to create a paradox that indirectly limits the forward motion of the plane - do we agree that if the wording is changed slightly so the conveyor moves at the same speed as the *plane* over the ground (disregarding the free spinning wheels) and in either the opposite or the same direction the plane will take off?


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

PDX_Doug said:


> _The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, _


If the belt is matching the wheel speed, the how can the plane move forward?

...I'm a Marketing guy...not an Engineer. When I ran on my treadmill today, when it goes faster...I match it's speed and therefore don't run off the front. How can the plane go forward if the speeds is equal?


----------



## huntr70 (Jul 8, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> _The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, _


If the belt is matching the wheel speed, the how can the plane move forward?

...I'm a Marketing guy...not an Engineer. When I ran on my treadmill today, when it goes faster...I match it's speed and therefore don't run off the front. How can the plane go forward if the speeds is equal?
[/quote]
Imagine that while you are running on your treadmill, someone pushes you....you move forward.

An airplane gets pulled through the air by the prop, not by the turning of the wheels. The prop will pull the plane through the air on the ground the same as in the air....the wheels are just there so the plane doesn't belly scrape the whole time.

The bush pilots have been doing this all their lives, taking off from moving rivers with the plane on floats....same thing.


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Oregon_Camper said:


> _The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, _


If the belt is matching the wheel speed, the how can the plane move forward?

...I'm a Marketing guy...not an Engineer. When I ran on my treadmill today, when it goes faster...I match it's speed and therefore don't run off the front. How can the plane go forward if the speeds is equal?
[/quote]

Because there is really no required correlation between the speed of the wheel rotation and the forward speed of the plane.

Imagine for a moment that instead of being on a big conveyor belt, the plane is sitting on a frozen lake bed. Now, the pilot can lock the wheel brakes up solid, but as soon as he brings the power up the plane is going to accelerate (skidding) across the ice and take off. All without the wheels turning at all. Again... no direct correlation between the wheels and the forward motion of the aircraft.

Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

PDX_Doug said:


> _The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, _


If the belt is matching the wheel speed, the how can the plane move forward?

...I'm a Marketing guy...not an Engineer. When I ran on my treadmill today, when it goes faster...I match it's speed and therefore don't run off the front. How can the plane go forward if the speeds is equal?
[/quote]

Because there is really no required correlation between the speed of the wheel rotation and the forward speed of the plane.

Imagine for a moment that instead of being on a big conveyor belt, the plane is sitting on a frozen lake bed. Now, the pilot can lock the wheel brakes up solid, but as soon as he brings the power up the plane is going to accelerate (skidding) across the ice and take off. All without the wheels turning at all. Again... no direct correlation between the wheels and the forward motion of the aircraft.

Happy Trails,
Doug
[/quote]

Ok...that clears up the debate on my part. I was always under the impression the reason the treadmill was in the mix was to speed up to match the spinning wheels (which will match the speed of the plane until takeoff).

If this whole thing was about the tires not moving then (while a lot of fun) we've spent a lot of time on nothing. Not complaining or moaning....I've had a LOT of fun with this.









The example with the plane on ice makes this crystal clear. Again, I think a lot of us (IMHO) we under the impression the plane would not move forward...hence our stance that it would not take off.

...just for fun, I still challenge the fact that if you could precisely match tire speed with the treadmill, that the plane would NOT move forward and therefore it would not take off.


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

huntr70 said:


> Imagine that while you are running on your treadmill, someone pushes you....you move forward.


I don't see the correlation. The "push" would come from an outside force...not my "engine". I can't "push" myself foward on the treadmill, if I try (ie...run faster) then the treadmill keeps up.

Thor....where are you? Help a brotha' out.


----------



## tdvffjohn (Mar 10, 2005)

This is so easy for my simple mind. I always seem to agree with whoever posts last and then someone else posts and they convince me and so on and so on and so on.









John


----------



## N7OQ (Jun 10, 2006)

Alright after reading Thor's posts and reading the way that the question is written then it is a real paradox and a imposable problem. If the planes wheels are moving the same speed of the conveyor then the plane would have no air speed. But in reality there is no way the conveyor could keep up with the speed of the airplane, the conveyor would have to be able to go at supersonic speeds to overcome the thrust of the plane and match its wheels speeds. I say the question is totally invalid and totally imposable.


----------



## bpedrotty (Nov 3, 2006)

I believe I may have been looking at the question the same way Thor was... Silly Me!









As an aside, I floated this question to a group of guys at work on a bad weather day when we had nothing else to debate and it came down 8 to 0 that the Mythbusters experiment would permit the plane to fly. It also came down 8 to 0 that _"if"_ a conveyor belt were created that was capable of continuing to precisely match the speed of the aircraft wheels (as measured at the wheel like a bike speedometer) and rotating in the opposite direction of intended travel of the aircraft, the plane would not take off (which is what Thor was also thinking). There are a lot of details and caveats in their quantification, but that particualr group consisted of six engineers (two aerospace, one flight test, two mechanical, and a marine), me (geographer), and a finance major. I knew it was going to get ugly when they started drawing on the white board... In the end, they concluded that it is the concept of "freewheel" that may trip people up. If the aircraft is sitting on teh ground and no lift is produced over the wings, it is no different from a car or a person or anything else. All because the drive is produced by the prop, the entire unit (wheels to wingtips) is earthbound and subject to the ability of the engine to overcome first the static friction and then the rolling friction of the contact of the wheel with the surface it sits on. If that surface is moving in a manner that the wheel cannot be accelerated by the engine faster in its intened direction than the surface is traveling in the opposite direction, it won't achive forward motion and it won't achieve lift. The examples of taking off from ice or a river are now introducing skid/slip which is, manifestation of the aircraft engine being able to accelerate teh aircraft (wheels to wing tips) at a rate faster than the surface it is sitting on. If you were to attempt to take-off from a river moving at 60 kts and at maximum thrust your plane could only move 55 kts., you'd go down river at five kts...

Anyway, it was fun to watch the experiments the way they did them. On another note, that above group has a combined 16000 flight hours, so the guy on Mythbusters wasn't the only person with wings who thinks the theory is sound but tough to prove practically.

Cheers all,

Walleye


----------



## BoaterDan (Jul 1, 2005)

walleye said:


> The examples of taking off from ice or a river are now introducing skid/slip which is, manifestation of the aircraft engine being able to accelerate teh aircraft (wheels to wing tips) at a rate faster than the surface it is sitting on. If you were to attempt to take-off from a river moving at 60 kts and at maximum thrust your plane could only move 55 kts., you'd go down river at five kts...


Close, but not quite right.









Your argument assumes the river would pull the boat along at the same speed the river was flowing. Anybody who's ever floated down a river knows that isn't what happens. I know it sounds like I'm arguing semantics just for argument sake, but read on.

Second, the whole reason planes have wheels with bearings is precisely to minimize the rolling resistance to something drastically less than a plane's floats on a river. Trying to make too much of the river analogy just confuses the issue. Consider this: imagine a plane sitting in a river flowing at 60 kts, but it only moves the plane along at 10kts, and the plane's roll off speed is 30kts. Your plane, which is able to move the plane at 55kts relative to the water, WILL take off.

Of course a plan can normally "accelerate the aircraft at a rate faster then the surface it is sitting on".... happens thousands of times a day every time a plane takes off from a normal runway. The point is that if the wheels spin free and the engines can get the plane moving at 100 kts it is utterly irrelevant if the wheels are spinning at normal 100kts speed or at 200kts.

You think we're bad, look at this: 596 pages of debate! click here


----------



## Moosegut (Sep 24, 2005)

This conundrum has been all over the Internet for years and the Mythbusters show hasn't really done anything to alleviate the differences of opinion. Oh well. But, I'll jump in again - the key phrase is "FREEWHEELING." If the wheels are freewheeling they will have NO effect on the propeller's ability to pull that plane forward.

If you replace the pontoons on the plane in the river with freewheeling balloon wheels (Like those beach carts), you remove most of the friction the pontoons would receive and the plane would move forward.

Here's one to ponder (it's not really a good analogy but it shows that the wheels can be insignificant from a different perspective too) - let's say I lock those wheels on that plane. I weld them so THEY ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TURN. Then, I get out my super-duper fan and place it in front of the plane and turn it on to generate a wind of 300 MPH - that plane is going to lift up - doesn't matter if the wheels don't move - it's lifting up.

Someone mentioned being on a treadmill and just having to run faster as the treadmill speeds up or he'll fall off. That's true. But put a jet pack or a fan on his back and it will push him forward. He is NO LONGER getting forward thrust from his legs (which is nullified by the treadmill), he is getting forward thrust from the back pack, irrespective of what his legs are doing.

The actual wording of the original problem states: "The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, moving in the opposite direction of rotation." This is FLAWED from the start in that this actually STOPS the wheels from TURNING, but it does not impede forward progress of the plane. The conveyor belt moves in the *opposite* direction of the wheel rotation, therefore the wheel does not turn and the conveyor belt becomes the means of allowing the plane to travel forward on the ground - see drawing below.

If the conveyor belt simply counters the spinning of the FREEWHEELING wheels, it does not impede forward progress. In the past people pooh-poohed an example of a freewheeling car on a treadmill with a string attached to it pulling it forward saying that's not the same, but it is exactly the same principle. The forward thrust comes from a source other than the wheels. Replace that string with a propeller on the front of the car and it moves forward.

If you use the original wording of the problem for the car - "The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, *moving in the opposite direction of rotation*" by moving in the opposite direction of rotation, if the car gets its propulsion from the wheels, that would actually speed the car faster - the wheels rotate clockwise, the belt moves counter clockwise and it spits the wheels forward.

So the whole thing is one big flaw. But the plane flies.


----------



## RizFam (Feb 25, 2006)

I am utterly amazed that this debate continues ... WOW too funny.









Tami


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Not to beat a dead horse, although that seems to be the mode we and many other forums are now in...

Look back at the point I was making in post #145. That is that the belt can't move until the plane moves, and if the plane moves at all, then it is moving faster than the belt at some point in time, thus breaking the rules of the question. There is no point in arguing the plane moving 100MPH this way, and the belt moving 100MPH the opposite way, it will never get to that point. Nor will it ever get to 10MPH > vs 10MPH <, or 1 MPH > vs 1 MPH <, of even .00000000001 MPH > vs .00000000001 <. By the literal wording of the question neither the plane or the belt can ever move at all. And yet, there is thrust being produced by the aircraft. If I were Sir Issac Newton, I would be asking "Where is that energy going? What is the equal and opposite reaction?"

Unless...

And the question technically does not allow for this...

Unless there is a lag between the time the plane starts to move, and the time the belt catches up to it's speed. If the plane were allowed to accelerate to, say, 1 MPH, and then hold that speed until the belt spun up to the same speed, the plane would not - from that point on move (false assumption here that it would not move, but I'm playing devils advocate with myself on this one







). But only because the plane has stabilized at a certain speed. However, it would have moved some distance during the time the conveyor belt is catching up. That said, due to any lag (no matter how brief), as long as the plane continues to accelerate, the belt would always be lagging behind, never catching up, and eventually the plane would reach a velocity allowing takeoff. It may take awhile, but it would get there eventually.

But again, the rules do not allow for any lag between the two. The way the question is presented, the reaction of the belt to the rotation of the airplanes wheels must be simultaneous.

Or unless... The belt is moving in the forward direction that Moosegut pointed out in his last post, which again, allows the aircraft to take off. Personally, I feel that this is the only answer that actually meets all the requirements of the original question, and obey the laws of physics.

The point of all this, is that the way the original question is worded is flawed, and presents a scenario that is not only practically impossible to demonstrate, but also presents a set of conditions that are absolutely at odds with each other, thus creating a physically impossible situation.

To step away from all of that for a moment, let's further reinforce what BoaterDan noted in his last post... The *ONLY* reason airplanes have wheels is to reduce friction between the aircraft and the ground. If that friction is not a concern due to other variables, such as a the slippery nature of ice or snow, planes dispense with wheels altogether, and use skis. And they take off and land just fine everyday.

Now if we can agree that the purpose of wheels is to reduce friction between the airplane and the ground, be it a normal runway or a conveyor belt, it really is not a big stretch to see that what the ground itself is doing will have no more effect on the physics of the airplane than imparting the slight amount of friction that the wheels and bearing allow to pass between the ground and the airplane. And the power plant of the aircraft is designed to overcome just that friction, and much more.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm having a ball here! For a moment there, I completely forgot it was the dead of winter!









Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

Doug.......My Engineering Hero.......









Lets put this into laymans terms.

If we strapped a pair of roller blades on Wolfie and put her on a treadmill and turned it on, she would have to hold on to keep herself on the treadmill. She has to do that to overcome some friction of the wheels meeting the treadmill, not much be she'll have to hold on.

Now if I came up behind her and pushed on her back she'd move forward, albeit, yelling at me but she'd move forward.

If I did it from the front she'd move backwards but would end up wrecking cause she's slapping at me....and still yelling and not holding on. Well if she used one hand she'd be okay.

If she was on the treadmill, which was zipping along forward or backward and I strapped a sail onto her, still yelling at me, and then turned on a big fan I'd blow her off the treadmill because of the force captured by the sail in the form of wind....and some hot air.

If we put Wolfie on a large strip of road with a big fan strapped to her back and her roller blades the fan would push her along...still probably yelling bad things at me, but the fan blades are pushing against the air mass creating forward motion.

If on that same strip of road I put a large carpet under her (something on the the thicker side cause the cheap stuff'll leave a nasty carpet burn) while still having the fan strapped to her and I pull the carpet with her tundra in the opposite direction the carpet will slip out from under her wheels while the fan is still pushing her forward and we'll have to run after her.

It's all about over coming the friction of Wolfie's free spinning roller blade wheels. And that ain't much friction. There's alot coming from Wolfie, but not her wheels.

If we pull the carpet in the same direction she's facing, (yup she'e still got the fan and rollerblades) the only thing different is that now the carpet is moving with her and the wheels don't have to turn as fast, if at all and she still screams and hollers and moves forward, just that much faster.

Newtons laws are being proved in two places. At the point where Wolfie's rollerblades meet the surface, and where the force is being provided (which over comes the friction of her wheels easily) in the sail, or the fan, or my hand pushing in one direction or the other.

Now we got to get the stuff off of Wolfie. You guys have a great time....I'm outta here!

Eric


----------



## Moosegut (Sep 24, 2005)

RizFam said:


> I am utterly amazed that this debate continues ... WOW too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't help but notice that John is saying nothing.


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

egregg57 said:


> You guys have a great time....I'm outta here!


That would probably be a good idea, Eric!









Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## BigBadBrain (Aug 26, 2004)

This is like a soap opera - tune in and the story never seems to change or make any progress. I would have thought people would have moved on by now.


----------



## skippershe (May 22, 2006)

did somebody say







?

IT FLEW!!!! OY!!!!


----------



## Moosegut (Sep 24, 2005)

BigBadBrain said:


> This is like a soap opera - tune in and the story never seems to change or make any progress. I would have thought people would have moved on by now.


I don't know that it's a question of "moving on" but rather one of "Are we still having fun with it?" I'm still enjoying it and it seems others are too. No harm, no foul.


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

PDX_Doug said:


> You guys have a great time....I'm outta here!


That would probably be a good idea, Eric!









Happy Trails,
Doug
[/quote]
Yeah! Right!

I'll save you the trouble, Eric (but you won't miss it, dear







We all know you will find more







)

Walking across a stationary floor WITHOUT any other external or alternate means propulsion is enough of a challenge....no wheels, blades, skis, prop, push, pull, or wind chamber are necessary....no need to go to the trouble of a conveyor belt, speed matching, friction mearusirng,etc.!

None of it! "Simple' walking will do. Don't even need to worry about semantics or correctly wording the question









I can assure you.....The Wolf *WILL* "take flight"......


----------



## skippershe (May 22, 2006)

Moosegut said:


> This is like a soap opera - tune in and the story never seems to change or make any progress. I would have thought people would have moved on by now.


I don't know that it's a question of "moving on" but rather one of "Are we still having fun with it?" I'm still enjoying it and it seems others are too. No harm, no foul.
[/quote]
I agree...this is a fun thread









I just wanted to use my dead horse avatar again


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

For anybody that missed it, here is the video from MythBusters: Clicky thing
I don't know?... sure looks like it flew to me.









Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

PDX_Doug said:


> For anybody that missed it, here is the video from MythBusters: Clicky thing
> I don't know?... sure looks like it flew to me.
> 
> 
> ...


'ATABOY DOUG. Give that poor horse some CPR.







I'm surprised you didn't save that for - oh, I don't know - a few more days (ok - WEEKS) - when this thread had lost some of its luster







The proverbial horse would be good and dead by then and surely would need to be resurrected lest it (blessedly) pass from anyone's memory


----------



## Moosegut (Sep 24, 2005)

PDX_Doug said:


> For anybody that missed it, here is the video from MythBusters: Clicky thing
> I don't know?... sure looks like it flew to me.
> 
> 
> ...


And I don't know if anybody caught it but Jamie said "Once we started to roll, I gunned it. I got up to a fairly good clip." So, the conveyor belt was even moving FASTER than the 25 MPH the plane needed to take off. And to quote Mr. Hyneman again, "People just can't seem to wrap their brains around the fact that the plane's engine is not sending power to the wheels, it's sending it to the propeller." Myth - BUSTED.


----------



## RizFam (Feb 25, 2006)

Moosegut said:


> I am utterly amazed that this debate continues ... WOW too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't help but notice that John is saying nothing.















[/quote]

Ha Ha







He is just reading & laughing in the back ground.

Tami


----------



## tdvffjohn (Mar 10, 2005)

The civility of this discussion is what we all are proud of here
















I enjoy reading it all but could you imagine having the discussion over a campfire and beer









John

Edited out the a..........you are right Wolfie


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

tdvffjohn said:


> I enjoy reading it all but could you imagine having the discussion over a campfire and a beer


LOL!

I can see it now...

One group would be feverishly tying patio mats together for a runway, while the rest were holding Thor down and strapping unfolded chaise lounges to his arms as makeshift wings!









Ah... the mind races!

Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

tdvffjohn said:


> The civility of this discussion is what we all are proud of here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can you really make 1 beer last THAT long ???

Actually, I suppose I could, too - as long as the bottle of rum was also within reach!


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

PDX_Doug said:


> I enjoy reading it all but could you imagine having the discussion over a campfire and a beer


LOL!

I can see it now...

One group would be feverishly tying patio mats together for a runway, while the rest were holding Thor down and strapping unfolded chaise lounges to his arms as makeshift wings!









Ah... the mind races!

Happy Trails,
Doug[/quote]

I see strong possibilities for an East/West Rally event here - Thor at an East Coast rally somewhere near sea level, Doug in the West (isn't there a Montana Rally in the mountains coming up?)







Could even become a rival to First Robotics!

And all those new questions to be added...... Does altitude matter? Air Density? Sun? Rain? Sea spray? Day? Night? Age of pilot? # of glassses of Kool-Aid already ingested? Countless variables....


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

PDX_Doug said:


> I enjoy reading it all but could you imagine having the discussion over a campfire and a beer


LOL!

I can see it now...

One group would be feverishly tying patio mats together for a runway, while the rest were holding Thor down and strapping unfolded chaise lounges to his arms as makeshift wings!









Ah... the mind races!

Happy Trails,
Doug
[/quote]

Dang, there are so many I want to respond to but have to leave in a minute. Just curious, what type of clothing would Thor be wearing while performing this feat???


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Doxie-Doglover-Too said:


> I enjoy reading it all but could you imagine having the discussion over a campfire and a beer


LOL!

I can see it now...

One group would be feverishly tying patio mats together for a runway, while the rest were holding Thor down and strapping unfolded chaise lounges to his arms as makeshift wings!









Ah... the mind races!

Happy Trails,
Doug[/quote]
Dang, there are so many I want to respond to but have to leave in a minute. Just curious, what type of clothing would Thor be wearing while performing this feat???[/quote]
What else? His Canadian Boxers! (With Doug comparably clad in the West) Unless, of course, this is NOT an East/West thing and then I suppose the proper attire for Thor would be the Maid's Outfit ..


----------



## BoaterDan (Jul 1, 2005)

Yep, just having fun really. I'm afraid I'm addicted to this $#"&@ thread now!

You'll note that in the example I gave where there is currently almost 600 pages of debate the original question is slightly different and does not contain Thor's Paradox.







Yet they still have gone around and around on it ad nauseum!

Here's an interesting question, just cuz I need something more to say.

Imagine a car is on a treadmill and would like to move forward. The driver pushes the gas to the position that would normally result in 50mph forward motion. The treadmill is moving toward the back of the car at 25mph. There is a 25mph wind hitting the car square in the front, but the car is perfectly designed so it has no wind resistance. Does the car move forward?

If you answer "of course it does", then stop to think about how the wind and treadmill have absolutely nothing to do with each other in both this question and the plane one. Here because the car is perfectly aerodynamic, with the plane because the wheels spin freely.


----------



## BigBadBrain (Aug 26, 2004)

OK, so there's this square rigged model boat, and on the back of the boat is a battery operated fan aimed at the sails. With alkaline batteries in the fan and no other means of propulsion, will the boat move forward? There is no wind.

OK, OK.

So, there is the zeppelin and a bucket of blue water...


----------



## MaeJae (May 12, 2005)

I think it's time!


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

PDX_Doug said:


> _The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, _


If the belt is matching the wheel speed, the how can the plane move forward?

...I'm a Marketing guy...not an Engineer. When I ran on my treadmill today, when it goes faster...I match it's speed and therefore don't run off the front. How can the plane go forward if the speeds is equal?
[/quote]

Because there is really no required correlation between the speed of the wheel rotation and the forward speed of the plane.

Imagine for a moment that instead of being on a big conveyor belt, the plane is sitting on a frozen lake bed. Now, the pilot can lock the wheel brakes up solid, but as soon as he brings the power up the plane is going to accelerate (skidding) across the ice and take off. All without the wheels turning at all. Again... no direct correlation between the wheels and the forward motion of the aircraft.

Happy Trails,
Doug
[/quote]

Doug

I would have to disagree with you. The wheels have 0 rotational speed but is moving forward and the ice is stationary hence the speed is not matched. Now take that same piece of ice and start moving it rearward and the same speed. Now the plane is not moving at all.

As for the jet the conveyor .... the conveyor would move with the same force of the jet but in reverse.

Consider the guy on roller blades which a not under power. This person skates at exactly 10mph and coasts onto a moving sidewalk that is moving in the opposite direct at 10mph. The guy will remain stationary relative to the ground and eventually moved in the same direction as the conveyor belt due to friction. Friction would cause the wheels to slow down.

Same as the plane.

One more point to back up my logic

A sail boat with a fan mounted on it blowing into the sail would not move at all regardless of the size of the fan. Newtons 3rd law. Now if the fan was mounted on shore, the boat would move. Now if you put the fan on ice and the sail boat on ice the fan and boat would would at the same speed but in opposite directions assuming the fan and boat have the same mass.

The plane will not move.

Will the fun never end









Thor


----------



## MaeJae (May 12, 2005)

Here it comes...


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Thor said:


> Doug
> _Thor_
> 
> I would have to disagree with you.
> ...


----------



## MaeJae (May 12, 2005)

Dang! I thought I had it...
I'll find it.


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

Moosegut said:


> This is like a soap opera - tune in and the story never seems to change or make any progress. I would have thought people would have moved on by now.


I don't know that it's a question of "moving on" but rather one of "Are we still having fun with it?" I'm still enjoying it and it seems others are too. No harm, no foul.
[/quote]

Could agree more...

It is winter...we have snow on our Outbacks. Let's find something else to keep our brain busy other then mods and backing into a great campsite, with our DW screaming some kind of instructions, but unknown to man.


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

Moosegut said:


> ....."People just can't seem to wrap their brains around the fact that the plane's engine is not sending power to the wheels, it's sending it to the propeller."


Wow...didn't know that.







(stir the pot...stir the pot)


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> ....."People just can't seem to wrap their brains around the fact that the plane's engine is not sending power to the wheels, it's sending it to the propeller."


Wow...didn't know that.







(stir the pot...stir the pot)
[/quote]
Boil ....Bubble. ... Toil & Trouble ....


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

wolfwood said:


> ....."People just can't seem to wrap their brains around the fact that the plane's engine is not sending power to the wheels, it's sending it to the propeller."


Wow...didn't know that.







(stir the pot...stir the pot)
[/quote]
Boil ....Bubble. ... Toil & Trouble ....








[/quote]

Hehehehe...


----------



## Moosegut (Sep 24, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> ....."People just can't seem to wrap their brains around the fact that the plane's engine is not sending power to the wheels, it's sending it to the propeller."


Wow...didn't know that.







(stir the pot...stir the pot)
[/quote]
Hey, just remember, that was NOT ME saying that - it was Jamie Hyneman.


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

The plane speed has nothing to do with how it is powered while on the ground.

Ok one more time

If your point of view is that the question is asking speed of the wheels on a conveyor belt, it does not matter what is force is applied, prop, motor, jet pack... The question is relative to the wheel speed and the conveyor belt. If they have to be the same and in the opposite direction...then the object will not move. Period.

This is how I understand the question.

Now one for the other side.

The plane can be moving at 100mph in the opposite direction of a conveyor belt that is spinning 100mph only if the planes wheels are spinning at 200mph, regardless on what powers the wheels.

This holds true regardless if the object is a plane or a car.

Put the car on a conveyor belt that is spinning 100mph and the car in the opposite direction with speedometer reading 100mph. Relative to the ground the car is stationary but the wheels are spinning at 100mph. Now take the car to 200mph on the speedometer. The conveyor is still spinning at 100mph and the car is moving forward 100mph hence the car and the conveyor belt are moving at 100mph in the opposite direction. Problem solved ... plane, car, skateboard it really doesn't matter. In case of a plane ...the plane will lift.

If you need match the speed of the wheels to the conveyor the oject will remain stationary.
If you take it the object's speed then it is possible to move forward hence flight.

Hey I just answered the question - We are both right
















Now, to solve the bet. I guess Doug, You and I will have to serve each other in a maid's outfit









Thor


----------



## MaeJae (May 12, 2005)

Still looking! ...Sorry.


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Thor said:


> I guess Doug, You and I will have to serve each other in a maid's outfit


*KINKY!*









Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

PDX_Doug said:


> I guess Doug, You and I will have to serve each other in a maid's outfit


*KINKY!*









Happy Trails,
Doug
[/quote]

LMAO

Thor


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

Moosegut said:


> ....."People just can't seem to wrap their brains around the fact that the plane's engine is not sending power to the wheels, it's sending it to the propeller."


Wow...didn't know that.







(stir the pot...stir the pot)
[/quote]
Hey, just remember, that was NOT ME saying that - it was Jamie Hyneman.
[/quote]

I know..but it was more fun to cut his name out and "stir the post...stir the pot"


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

Thor said:


> Now, to solve the bet. I guess Doug, You and I will have to serve each other in a maid's outfit


....or you guys could show up at your next local rally and serve all of US...


----------



## cookie9933 (Feb 26, 2005)

Thor said:


> One more point to back up my logic
> 
> A sail boat with a fan mounted on it blowing into the sail would not move at all regardless of the size of the fan. Newtons 3rd law. Now if the fan was mounted on shore, the boat would move. Now if you put the fan on ice and the sail boat on ice the fan and boat would would at the same speed but in opposite directions assuming the fan and boat have the same mass.
> 
> ...


Of course the sailboat will move. Let's see, a fan on a boat....I presume everyone has seen the airboats used in the everglades. The sail will act as a major drag, negating some (or even most, depending on fan/sail proximity) of the fan's propulsive force. But not all of it.

And the plane on the conveyor belt will get airborne too.

Bill


----------



## BigBadBrain (Aug 26, 2004)

If I take Thor's position correctly, then the airplane engine could be on or off and it wouldn't matter. In the case where the engine is off, I agree with Thor!


----------



## MaeJae (May 12, 2005)

Ok... Ok... I found it!!!
I will be right back with it!


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

Bill

An airboat does not have the fan blowing into its own sail. Put a sail behind the airboat and it will not move.

Thor


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

It is the same thing as....

Imagine if you have a 1000 birds in a box on the back of a tractor trailer and it is on a scale. Now measure the weight of the trailer and 1000 birds. Let us call this weight Xlbs. Now someone scares all the birds so they all fly in the box on the trailer....does the weight on the scale change?

The scale will not change, the force to lift the birds in the air pushes down on the scale with the same amount. Same as the fan mounted on a boat pointing into its own sail.

Will anyone take the side that the scale will weigh less than Xlbs when the birds are flying???

Thor


----------



## MaeJae (May 12, 2005)

Well here it is!!!


It took me a long time to sort through 
ALL the junk that was in there but...


I never gave up!

I finally found it!

You guys need to take a deep breath 
and rest ...and go to



Your empty box for a while!









You can use it while you watch the game tomorrow


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

MaeJae said:


> Well here it is!!!
> 
> 
> It took me a long tome to sort through
> ...


Mae Jae, you have taken you artistic photoshop talents to the top! How DID you get that box to be so so......empty?


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Doxie-Doglover-Too said:


> Well here it is!!!
> 
> 
> It took me a long tome to sort through
> ...


Mae Jae, you have taken you artistic photoshop talents to the top! How DID you get that box to be so so......empty?
[/quote]

It's clearly a malebox


----------



## skippershe (May 22, 2006)

wolfwood said:


> It's clearly a malebox


ROTF!


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

skippershe said:


> It's clearly a malebox


ROTF!








[/quote]

Oh...so that's how it's going to be eh?


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

Oregon_Camper said:


> It's clearly a malebox


ROTF!








[/quote]

Oh...so that's how it's going to be eh?
[/quote]

LMAO - Good one Wolfie









Thor


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

wolfwood said:


> Well here it is!!!
> 
> 
> It took me a long tome to sort through
> ...


Mae Jae, you have taken you artistic photoshop talents to the top! How DID you get that box to be so so......empty?
[/quote]

It's clearly a malebox








[/quote]







That's our Wolfie! Good one!


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> It's clearly a malebox


ROTF!







[/quote]
Oh...so that's how it's going to be eh?[/quote]














Now don't get your toolbelt tangled, my good man. I just call it like I see it


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

wolfwood said:


> It's clearly a malebox


ROTF!







[/quote]
Oh...so that's how it's going to be eh?[/quote]














Now don't get your toolbelt tangled, my good man. I just call it like I see it
















[/quote]

Oh...it's tangled and I'm going to need a







to get it back in line.


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

Oregon_Camper said:


> It's clearly a malebox


ROTF!







[/quote]
Oh...so that's how it's going to be eh?[/quote]














Now don't get your toolbelt tangled, my good man. I just call it like I see it
















[/quote]

Oh...it's tangled and I'm going to need a







to get it back in line.
[/quote]

Do I hear an abduction threat?


----------



## BoaterDan (Jul 1, 2005)

Thor said:


> Put the car on a conveyor belt that is spinning 100mph and the car in the opposite direction with speedometer reading 100mph. Relative to the ground the car is stationary but the wheels are spinning at 100mph. Now take the car to 200mph on the speedometer. The conveyor is still spinning at 100mph and the car is moving forward 100mph hence the car and the conveyor belt are moving at 100mph in the opposite direction. Problem solved ... plane, car, skateboard it really doesn't matter. In case of a plane ...the plane will lift.
> 
> If you need match the speed of the wheels to the conveyor the oject will remain stationary.
> If you take it the object's speed then it is possible to move forward hence flight.


From reading other versions of the original question, it seems the intent was simply to confuse people who couldn't separate this in their heads, as Jamie pointed out on the show.

The difference between the car and the plane seems subtle, but it is tremendously significant. If the question says the conveyor speed matches the object's speed, then in the case of the car it doesn't move but in the case of the plane it still does.


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

*This is bogus, dude!*

After all this time... and all this effort... all we come to... the agreement that we can all, um, agree on... is that it's nothing more than a poorly worded and unresolvable question?

Why didn't somebody notice this in the first place!









<sigh>

Happy Flying,
Doug


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

Doxie-Doglover-Too said:


> It's clearly a malebox


ROTF!







[/quote]
Oh...so that's how it's going to be eh?[/quote]














Now don't get your toolbelt tangled, my good man. I just call it like I see it
















[/quote]

Oh...it's tangled and I'm going to need a







to get it back in line.
[/quote]

Do I hear an abduction threat?
[/quote]

Outbackerman here!!!


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

egregg57 said:


> It's clearly a malebox


ROTF!







[/quote]
Oh...so that's how it's going to be eh?[/quote]














Now don't get your toolbelt tangled, my good man. I just call it like I see it
















[/quote]

Oh...it's tangled and I'm going to need a







to get it back in line.
[/quote]

Do I hear an abduction threat?
[/quote]

Outbackerman here!!!
[/quote]

I've tangled my tollbelt Eric....need some help. Would you mind doing a Rambo mission over to...well...you know where.


----------



## BigBadBrain (Aug 26, 2004)

Eric on a Rambo mission? I feel a Doug-art photo coming...


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

egregg57 said:


> It's clearly a malebox


ROTF!







[/quote]
Oh...so that's how it's going to be eh?[/quote]














Now don't get your toolbelt tangled, my good man. I just call it like I see it
















[/quote]

Oh...it's tangled and I'm going to need a







to get it back in line.
[/quote]

Do I hear an abduction threat?
[/quote]

Outbackerman here!!!
[/quote]

hmmm...me thinks you will definently go over to Wolfwood with the warmhearted good intentions of protecting the Sacred Staff BUT ( read: yeah like that's even remotely possible) upon the arrival at Wolfwood and with Staff in your site, you will begin to tremble and convulse as your thievery tendancies take over all common sense and your tempations of hurting Staff will be too great. Instead of becoming Outbacker man the Hero and Protector, you will become an accomplice! You're evilness is always lurking below the surface. I am off to warn Wolfie!


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Thanks, Doxie. It's good to have a watchful team in place. NOW, be assured that it is beyond the abilities of an Eric, under the guise of Outbackerman or....otherwise







.... to enter the Castle Wolfwood without alerting the attention (and, obviously - suspicion) of the 2 loyal and mighty sentries of the estate. Sir Seeker & Master Tadger are, at all times, on guard and watchfull!!! Their ever-watchfull presence will also soon (very soon!!!) be fortified by the wild and untamed Stalkers of the Trees.

As for setting sight on







, Unlikely....precautions have been taken. But even if this were to occur.....Eric's evilness precedes even _his_ chariot. Let him turn his ski-less sled into the lane with evil in his heart and the wild creatures scramble - his headlights flash - his horn blares thru the neighborhood....and the inhabitants of Wolfwood (nay - of the entire town) know of his less-than-stealthy arrival. (Of course - then he must call out for aid as his trusty (?) steed catches a foot in the shallow mud pools, throws itself into the few remaining snow banks, and flails helplessly until the Wolfwood T-U-N-D-R-A arrives to save the day. HERSELF to the rescue!!! < "Chariots of Fire" refrain turned up - LOUD!!>)

Be not afraid, Doxie the Loyal - O/C's toolbelt shall remain tangled!


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

Thou dost Scoff at Outbackerman?


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

egregg57 said:


> Thou dost Scoff at Outbackerman?


Appears they have scoffed....you need resolve this situation with trickery and deception....no







will be safe.


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> Thou dost Scoff at Outbackerman?


Appears they have scoffed....you need resolve this situation with trickery and deception....no







will be safe.
[/quote]
You are good, Jim....stir the pot, then back off- telling him that HE has to resolve what you've stirred. Good jpb! And yanno - I'll bet he bites that hook, too.







Good job, indeed!

Oh - and one more thing - - just stay on the West Coast. Ok?


----------



## BoaterDan (Jul 1, 2005)

PDX_Doug said:


> *This is bogus, dude!*
> 
> After all this time... and all this effort... all we come to... the agreement that we can all, um, agree on... is that it's nothing more than a poorly worded and unresolvable question?
> 
> ...


Work with me here Doug. I'm trying my best to turn this into an argument about the wording of the question.


----------



## BoaterDan (Jul 1, 2005)

BoaterDan said:


> If the question says the conveyor speed matches the object's speed, then in the case of the car it doesn't move...


Wait, I think I've been sucked into the paradox black hole!

If you think about it that way, then the only way the question ISN'T a paradox is if the pane does indeed move forward. Eh?

Come on, we can keep this alive!


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

BoaterDan said:


> If the question says the conveyor speed matches the object's speed, then in the case of the car it doesn't move...


Wait, I think I've been sucked into the paradox black hole!

If you think about it that way, then the only way the question ISN'T a paradox is if the pane does indeed move forward. Eh?

Come on, we can keep this alive!
[/quote]
In that case, you are absolutely right!!!! As is Doug.







The pane *PAIN* hasn't changed at all!!


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

BoaterDan said:


> If the question says the conveyor speed matches the object's speed, then in the case of the car it doesn't move...


Wait, I think I've been sucked into the paradox black hole!

If you think about it that way, then the only way the question ISN'T a paradox is if the pane does indeed move forward. Eh?

Come on, we can keep this alive!
[/quote]

Or..... Or!.... (Ready for this, Dan?)... Or, if the conveyor belt itself is on a conveyor belt, traveling in the opposite rotation of the initial conveyor belt!

Huh? HUH? Am I right? You know it Hoss!









YEAH BABY! We're back in business!









Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

PDX_Doug said:


> If the question says the conveyor speed matches the object's speed, then in the case of the car it doesn't move...


Wait, I think I've been sucked into the paradox black hole!

If you think about it that way, then the only way the question ISN'T a paradox is if the pane does indeed move forward. Eh?

Come on, we can keep this alive!
[/quote]

Or..... Or!.... (Ready for this, Dan?)... Or, if the conveyor belt itself is on a conveyor belt, traveling in the opposite rotation of the initial conveyor belt!

Huh? HUH? Am I right? You know it Hoss!









YEAH BABY! We're back in business!









Happy Trails,
Doug
[/quote]

Wait......How fast does Earth spin?


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

egregg57 said:


> Wait......How fast does Earth spin?


*ROTFLMAO!!!!*

(HAH!! I missed my keyboard!!! Tadger & Seeker are now happily cleaning the coffee off the floor!))


----------



## MaeJae (May 12, 2005)

BigBadBrain said:


> < snip ...Eric on a Rambo mission? ...snip>


Oh, My!!!


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Thanks, MaeJae... you're certainly NEVER one to disappoint.....


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

MaeJae said:


>


time to step away from the Steriods Eric...


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

MaeJae

Outstanding

Thor


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

MaeJae said:


> < snip ...Eric on a Rambo mission? ...snip>


Oh, My!!!


















[/quote]

ohhhhh, Eriiiicccc, I didn't know you were so muussccuullaaarrrr and dreamy........HA!


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Doxie-Doglover-Too said:


> ohhhhh, Eriiiicccc, I didn't know you were so muussccuullaaarrrr and dreamy........HA!


Yet another benefit to living in New England...not to mention "down the road from Outbackerman, himself"

<oops! I did mention it, didn't I?







>


----------



## MaeJae (May 12, 2005)

wolfwood said:


> Wait......*How fast does Earth spin?*


*ROTFLMAO!!!!*

(HAH!! I missed my keyboard!!! Tadger & Seeker are now happily cleaning the coffee off the floor!))

[/quote]

I think the real question is...


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

Hey Maejae turned Eric into Pinochio wearing a wolf suit! but of course we all know that Eric doesn't lie, wouldn't pretend to be something he's not , and........oh who am I kidding? now back to something about gravity and earth spinning......... ( good job Maejae!)


----------



## MaeJae (May 12, 2005)

Hey! that's Wil-*E*-Coyote


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

*C-O-Y-O-T-E*, DOXIE, *C - O - Y - O - T - E !!!* Known by the Native Americans as "The Trickster"

Cummon! Everyone knows Wolves are cuter!!

<Eric - can you say "MEEP MEEP" ? >


----------



## 3LEES (Feb 18, 2006)

Can ANY of you say...OFF Topic???


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

The plane flew....question answered....myth BUSTED.

(Well past) time to move on









Gotta do/talk about something while waiting for the Maid's Outfit to be donned (or, in this case, Thor'd)


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

wolfwood said:


> The plane flew....question answered....myth BUSTED.


While not following the true meaning of the discussion.


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

wolfwood said:


> *C-O-Y-O-T-E*, DOXIE, *C - O - Y - O - T - E !!!* Known by the Native Americans as "The Trickster"
> 
> Cummon! Everyone knows Wolves are cuter!!
> 
> <Eric - can you say "MEEP MEEP" ? >


Have I disgraced the great WOLFWOOD? Oh no! I have called a coyote a wolf, how can I undo the injustice!







sheesh, I gotta watch more cartoons!


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

3LEES said:


> Can ANY of you say...OFF Topic???


think of it as commercials


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

Doxie-Doglover-Too said:


> Have I disgraced the great WOLFWOOD? Oh no! I have called a coyote a wolf, how can I undo the injustice!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Too late...you're doomed for sure now.


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> Have I disgraced the great WOLFWOOD? Oh no! I have called a coyote a wolf, how can I undo the injustice!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Too late...you're doomed for sure now.








[/quote]
Don't be askeered by the evil doers, T. *THEY* have a significant 'balance due' (to several of us, in fact







) while *YOU* have "paid forward" several times over !!!! (It's like _some_ people [don't _EVEN_ think about it, Eric] being allowed to refer to a Sheltie as a "Miniature Collie"







)


----------



## BoaterDan (Jul 1, 2005)

So, let me see if I have this right...

If Wile-E-Coyote is in a wind tunnel on a treadmill that's moving backward at the speed of a road-runner, and a giant anvil being carried by a Sheltie is moving forward at the speed of a car with the wheels spinning 200mph with the rear wheels locked up on ice with a 100mph headwind created by a guy on rollerblades being pushed by a guy standing next to him...

then the plane _will_ fly?


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

BoaterDan said:


> So, let me see if I have this right...
> 
> If Wile-E-Coyote is in a wind tunnel on a treadmill that's moving backward at the speed of a road-runner, and a giant anvil being carried by a Sheltie is moving forward at the speed of a car with the wheels spinning 200mph with the rear wheels locked up on ice with a 100mph headwind created by a guy on rollerblades being pushed by a guy standing next to him...
> 
> then the plane _will_ fly?


...and there is NO Wolf in sight!

You got it. Plane flies!

BUT - alter any one - just ONE - of those variables and the parachute won't open, boat won't sail (might not even float!), Outback won't dump, and the world as we know it comes to a screeching halt!


----------



## MaeJae (May 12, 2005)

> So, let me see if I have this right...
> 
> If Wile-E-Coyote is in a wind tunnel on a treadmill that's moving backward at the speed of a road-runner, and a giant anvil being carried by a Sheltie is moving forward at the speed of a car with the wheels spinning 200mph with the rear wheels locked up on ice with a 100mph headwind created by a guy on rollerblades being pushed by a guy standing next to him...
> 
> then the plane _will_ fly?



Do you think it would resemble this???


----------



## Dreamtimers (Mar 7, 2005)

MaeJae said:


> > So, let me see if I have this right...
> >
> > If Wile-E-Coyote is in a wind tunnel on a treadmill that's moving backward at the speed of a road-runner, and a giant anvil being carried by a Sheltie is moving forward at the speed of a car with the wheels spinning 200mph with the rear wheels locked up on ice with a 100mph headwind created by a guy on rollerblades being pushed by a guy standing next to him...
> >
> ...


I didn't know how...

but I KNEW somehow --- Wolfie would end up knee deep in this. 
It just wouldn't have been -- "proper"--







if it hadn't happened.


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Dreamtimers said:


> > So, let me see if I have this right...
> >
> > If Wile-E-Coyote is in a wind tunnel on a treadmill that's moving backward at the speed of a road-runner, and a giant anvil being carried by a Sheltie is moving forward at the speed of a car with the wheels spinning 200mph with the rear wheels locked up on ice with a 100mph headwind created by a guy on rollerblades being pushed by a guy standing next to him...
> >
> ...


I didn't know how...

but I KNEW somehow --- Wolfie would end up knee deep in this. 
It just wouldn't have been -- "proper"--







if it hadn't happened.
[/quote]
Now, Dave







How did *I* get pulled into that ???? I believe that photo has *MAEJAE's*name all over it ... wish I was that clever (!) but I had NOTHING to do with that


----------



## MaeJae (May 12, 2005)




----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

wolfwood said:


> Now, Dave
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah...come now, you know you had something to do with it....


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> Now, Dave
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah...come now, you know you had something to do with it....








[/quote]

Uh....nope.....














Not _this_ time







MaeJae doesn't need me helping meddling with her stuff!!! She is WAY more clever than I am!!!


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

wolfwood said:


> Now, Dave
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah...come now, you know you had something to do with it....








[/quote]

Uh....nope.....














Not _this_ time







MaeJae doesn't need me helping meddling with her stuff!!! She is WAY more clever than I am!!!
[/quote]

so, you didn't have anything to do with then??


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> Now, Dave
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah...come now, you know you had something to do with it....








[/quote]

Uh....nope.....














Not _this_ time







MaeJae doesn't need me helping meddling with her stuff!!! She is WAY more clever than I am!!!
[/quote]

so, you didn't have anything to do with then??
[/quote]
Moi?


----------



## Dreamtimers (Mar 7, 2005)

I only said you would end up knee deep. Not that you did -anything-







to cause it.

Well have fun anyway!

Dave


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

wolfwood said:


> Moi?


vous.


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> Moi?


vous.[/quote]

Ahem....are you joining Doug and Thor in the French Maid's outfits? Stunning. Simply stunning!


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

wolfwood said:


> Moi?


vous.[/quote]

Ahem....are you joining Doug and Thor in the French Maid's outfits? Stunning. Simply stunning!

[/quote]

the only joining I'll be dong is with a camera!


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> Moi?


vous.[/quote]

Ahem....are you joining Doug and Thor in the French Maid's outfits? Stunning. Simply stunning!

[/quote]

the only joining I'll be dong is with a camera!
[/quote]

THAT ain't right!


----------



## MaeJae (May 12, 2005)

wolfwood said:


> Now, Dave
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah...come now, you know you had something to do with it....








[/quote]

Uh....nope.....














Not _this_ time







MaeJae doesn't need me helping meddling with her stuff!!! She is WAY more clever than I am!!!
[/quote]

so, you didn't have anything to do with then??
[/quote]
Moi?
[/quote]









clickity-click

These guys look a little too familiar!


----------



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

wolfwood said:


> Moi?


vous.[/quote]

Ahem....are you joining Doug and Thor in the French Maid's outfits? Stunning. Simply stunning!

[/quote]

the only joining I'll be dong is with a camera!
[/quote]

THAT ain't right!








[/quote]


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

Doxie-Doglover-Too said:


> Moi?


vous.[/quote]

Ahem....are you joining Doug and Thor in the French Maid's outfits? Stunning. Simply stunning!

[/quote]

the only joining I'll be dong is with a camera!
[/quote]

THAT ain't right!








[/quote]
[/quote]

LMAO

Thor


----------



## Collinsfam_WY (Nov 9, 2006)

The plane takes off. It accelerates and actually moves down the conveyor like it was a regular runway - the wheels just spin faster according to the speed of the conveyor. Check yer wheel bearings before takeoff!

-CC

incidentally - I think I clicked the wrong radio button when voting!


----------



## wolfwood (Sep 19, 2005)




----------



## skippershe (May 22, 2006)

LOL!


----------



## Collinsfam_WY (Nov 9, 2006)




----------

