Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → An airplane on a conveyor belt will take off.
12345
An airplane on a conveyor belt will take off.
2008-02-02, 4:00 AM #161
Many myths are stupid, that doesn't mean they don't need busting.
And some myths seem stupid but have been proven true.
You can't judge a book by it's file size
2008-02-02, 5:26 AM #162
Originally posted by Avenger:
Airplane is correct in the US.


aer·o·plane (âr-pln)
n. Chiefly British (therefore superior)
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
2008-02-02, 6:54 AM #163
Originally posted by Cool Matty:
Jamie even specifically said when he saw the plane start to move forward he gunned it, meaning he was going faster than the plane's friggin takeoff velocity. If you need more proof you need to be shot.


Obviously you lack a scientific background. Try to look at it objectively without letting your lust for Jamie cloud your judgement.
My favorite JKDF2 h4x:
EAH XMAS v2
MANIPULATOR GUN
EAH SMOOTH SNIPER
2008-02-02, 7:15 AM #164
Originally posted by Jon`C:
(no, airliners use wheel brakes to stop)


Back in the 80s I was seated near the engines on a 737. Upon landing I saw out of the corner of my eye what appeared to be the engines falling off. My gaze shot straight to the engines only to see that the top and bottom of the engine shroud swung back to divert the thrust. What a relief.

I was recently on a newer model 737 and noticed that diverters were not used on landing so I guess they either aren't installed anymore or just weren't used.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2008-02-02, 11:46 AM #165
Originally posted by Mort-Hog:
Also, on a more grammatical (and therefore more important) level, it's written aeroplane not 'airplane'.


Oh, an aeroplane! No buttered scones for me, Mater, I'm off to play the grand piano!
Sorry for the lousy German
2008-02-02, 12:45 PM #166
Originally posted by EAH_TRISCUIT:
Obviously you lack a scientific background. Try to look at it objectively without letting your lust for Jamie cloud your judgement.


Obviously you lack a critical smarts. You don't even need a diagram to work this out, much less a real world test. :psyduck:

o.0
2008-02-02, 10:07 PM #167
Originally posted by Greenboy:
Obviously you lack a critical smarts. You don't even need a diagram to work this out, much less a real world test. :psyduck:


It's you intelligence that I am concerned for, since I never stated the plane wouldnt take off. I never said anything like that. I just have some issues with the scientific validity of their test. If you are going to do an experiment, shouldnt you strive to do it correctly? I understand its MythBusters TV and not a serious scientific experiment, but you would think you would want to monitor a few variables like speed of the conveyor vs speed of the airplane.
My favorite JKDF2 h4x:
EAH XMAS v2
MANIPULATOR GUN
EAH SMOOTH SNIPER
2008-02-02, 10:14 PM #168
They drove the truck at pretty much the same speed as the airplane.

Mythbusters isn't science, its meant to shut idiots up. Which it doesn't do anyway because stupid people continue to be stupid.

btw my intelligence is doing quite fine thanks

I feed it babies.

o.0
2008-02-02, 11:04 PM #169
Originally posted by EAH_TRISCUIT:
Obviously you lack a scientific background. Try to look at it objectively without letting your lust for Jamie cloud your judgement.


I, along with every other sane person here, is looking at it objectively. You're looking at it from a :downswords: perspective. It doesn't matter if you bother measuring the variables exactly or not, since their accuracy has absolutely nothing to do with the results of the test.
2008-02-02, 11:30 PM #170
I am just tired of getting attacked for questioning the apparently almighty MythBusters. I guess I just expect a little more from shows like MythBusters or Braniac. My bad.
My favorite JKDF2 h4x:
EAH XMAS v2
MANIPULATOR GUN
EAH SMOOTH SNIPER
2008-02-02, 11:32 PM #171
but my textbook says you have to measure everything!


(you are being attacked for saying stupid stuff. Mythbusters is tv. That should explain things well enough)

o.0
2008-02-03, 12:42 AM #172
Originally posted by EAH_TRISCUIT:
I am just tired of getting attacked for questioning the apparently almighty MythBusters. I guess I just expect a little more from shows like MythBusters or Braniac. My bad.


Questioning is fine, but in this case, they got it right.
Pissed Off?
2008-02-03, 1:36 AM #173
Originally posted by EAH_TRISCUIT:
I am just tired of getting attacked for questioning the apparently almighty MythBusters. I guess I just expect a little more from shows like MythBusters or Braniac. My bad.

Fair enough you want a little more science on Mythbusters - hell, I agree. But Brainiac? That's like watching The Lion King and complaining the entire time because animals can't actually talk.
2008-02-03, 1:43 AM #174
They can talk in Narnia. Land of awesome.
[http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/2579/narnia067sl1.jpg]

o.0
2008-02-03, 7:20 AM #175
Originally posted by EAH_TRISCUIT:
It's you intelligence that I am concerned for, since I never stated the plane wouldnt take off. I never said anything like that. I just have some issues with the scientific validity of their test. If you are going to do an experiment, shouldnt you strive to do it correctly? I understand its MythBusters TV and not a serious scientific experiment, but you would think you would want to monitor a few variables like speed of the conveyor vs speed of the airplane.


Well the conveyer was moving faster than the takeoff speed of the plane, so by anyones reasoning that the plane wouldnt take off at the same speeds, the plane should have actually moved backwards.
nope.
2008-02-03, 9:16 AM #176
Originally posted by EAH_TRISCUIT:
I am just tired of getting attacked for questioning the apparently almighty MythBusters. I guess I just expect a little more from shows like MythBusters or Braniac. My bad.

As many have said, it's TV. That means it has to bring in ratings otherwise it goes off the air and Adam & Jamie are back to building models for commercials. They try to be as scientific as possible but they have to keep essentially a laymens audience watching. Granted I think they were much more scientific in their process but lately I think they succumbed to the pressures of the execs to constantly blow **** up because explosions bring ratings. Leave it to the American public to ruin a perfectly good show.
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2008-02-03, 9:26 AM #177
Don't you people get Brainiac imported to give you Hammond blowing **** up?
nope.
2008-02-03, 11:27 AM #178
I've never heard of Brainiac before. From what I just read on Wikipedia, it sounds stupid. It also sounds like it rapes science worse than Mythbusters.
2008-02-03, 12:45 PM #179
Brainiac isn't meant to be scientific, it's meant to blow up caravans. It's literally just for ****s and giggles. And very funny it is too (although I've not seen any with Vic Reeves)
2008-02-03, 1:27 PM #180
We get Brainiac over here. Hammond really isnt that funny unless Clarkson and May are around.
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.
2008-02-03, 1:47 PM #181
I don't think its hammond that supposed to be funny, it's the blowing up caravans with detonators hooked up to the pockets of a snooker table that is.

:P
nope.
2008-02-03, 2:01 PM #182
Funny was never a word that came to mind when watching Brainiac. Probably more of that stupid British humor at work.

It is a cool show though.
2008-02-03, 2:04 PM #183
Hey guys, I figured out one possible instance where a plane on a conveyor belt won't take off. :v:

It would only be a jet, and it would have to be one where the turbines are started only by combustion (i.e. no starter motor, I'm not sure if they use such a thing anyway). If the conveyor belt was moving fast enough in reverse before the plane's engines started, air would be flowing too fast backwards through the turbines to get them properly started.

:suicide:
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2008-02-03, 2:14 PM #184
Originally posted by Emon:
Hey guys, I figured out one possible instance where a plane on a conveyor belt won't take off. :v:

It would only be a jet, and it would have to be one where the turbines are started only by combustion (i.e. no starter motor, I'm not sure if they use such a thing anyway). If the conveyor belt was moving fast enough in reverse before the plane's engines started, air would be flowing too fast backwards through the turbines to get them properly started.

:suicide:


Actually, DC-8's can't self start.

There is a machine that blasts air up into the engines to start them.
2008-02-03, 2:32 PM #185
JUMP JETS DAMNIT.
nope.
12345

↑ Up to the top!