The largest Civic Type R club forum

Established in 2002 it brings together people from all over the world to discuss their one love of Type R's.

Got an discussion that needs a majority verdict? Put it to the vote.

Will the plane take off?

Yes (after thinking about it :D) third poll
51
54%
No (after thinking about it) third poll
28
30%
i'm going for the mong paradox
4
4%
i'm just simply a mong and don't understand physics
2
2%
i'm a mong
4
4%
mong
5
5%
User avatar
By Liam Type-R
#3548184
Liam Type-R wrote:
Liam Type-R wrote:Ateshit, the question can be answered the way it is, it doesn't specify that it means the rotation speed of the wheels, so why can't it mean the speed in which the wheels are travelling forward?

Please answer. Does it solve the 'paradox'?
User avatar
By eatthis
#3548333
karl wrote:yeah, answer that one eatchips

1 more time just for you

the question as asked in this thread (is wrong) is a paradox because the only way the belt could MATCH the wheels speed is if the plane never moved in the 1st place


the proper question is the belt matches the planes speed it just means the wheels spin twice as fast as the planes forward speed.
nothing stops the plane from accelerating and taking off
User avatar
By karl
#3548334
yup, got it wrong again lol, I love hearing you trying to explain this :salut:

anyways, please explain your insistence on choosing rotational speed when the question simply asks "the belt senses the speed of the plane's wheels", not rotational speed, not air speed, not indicated or calculated speed, but just "the speed of the plane's wheels"?

your deliberate choice to break the question to save face is hilarious :roflmao:

now answer that ^
User avatar
By eatthis
#3548340
karl wrote:yup, got it wrong again lol, I love hearing you trying to explain this :salut:

anyways, please explain your insistence on choosing rotational speed when the question simply asks "the belt senses the speed of the plane's wheels", not rotational speed, not air speed, not indicated or calculated speed, but just "the speed of the plane's wheels"?

your deliberate choice to break the question to save face is hilarious :roflmao:

now answer that ^

at least youve been consistant for a change :clap:
youve actually stuck to a point and even refrained from throwing mongfagbutthurt into the conversation keep it up :thumbup:

it obviously implies the interpretation i put forward every other interpretation of wheelspeed is clutching at straws to shore up a really weak argument.

whats your interpretation of the question please iv either forgotten what it was or you didnt state it
User avatar
By Omni
#3548384
I don't think this can be proved until the great Professor Jeins' man with a propellor on his back experiment has been carried out
I strap a propellor to your back and put you on a running machine down the local gym. I turn on the running machine and the propellor at the same time. This running machine is great as it matches your speed whilst you run, the quicker you run, the quicker it goes thus ensuring that you never move from the same spot or go flying through the wall.

You are of course running on the spot although without it you would be propelled forwards by your own leg power.

You do have on your back a propeller though which is turned on and in fact you now increase its thrust which pushes you more, meaning you have to run at a greater speed / rate but as you do, the running machine matches your forward speed and therefore you remain on the same spot and you don't go through the wall. Your legs are the wheels, the propellor is the thrust, the running machine is the conveyor.

My whole argument is re the forward speed thru the air on the ground. If the forward speed on the ground is matched by the same speed in the opposite direction, you won't get airflow and therefore no lift!
User avatar
By Omni
#3548391
Bottom line is, nearly everyone who got this wrong initially did so because they wrongly assumed that the conveyor meant the plane wasn't moving forwards and thus no airflow on the wings. It's all in the first 20 or so pages in black and white, then someone came along and said oh yeah but maybe the question could be interpreted like this so it can't happen, and all of a sudden they're all like, 'oh yeah well that's what I meant, it's the question that's wrong.'

It's lucky that there are people here that don't permit such blatant weaselling to persist :salut:

I think the thread should be deleted and started again from scratch, this was 6 years ago now, and even with the relatively intelligent crowd we had back then a fair majority got it wrong initially, one can only wonder at the answers the current breed would produce.
User avatar
By Mart
#3548519
Omni wrote:I don't think this can be proved until the great Professor Jeins' man with a propellor on his back experiment has been carried out
I strap a propellor to your back and put you on a running machine down the local gym. I turn on the running machine and the propellor at the same time. This running machine is great as it matches your speed whilst you run, the quicker you run, the quicker it goes thus ensuring that you never move from the same spot or go flying through the wall.

You are of course running on the spot although without it you would be propelled forwards by your own leg power.

You do have on your back a propeller though which is turned on and in fact you now increase its thrust which pushes you more, meaning you have to run at a greater speed / rate but as you do, the running machine matches your forward speed and therefore you remain on the same spot and you don't go through the wall. Your legs are the wheels, the propellor is the thrust, the running machine is the conveyor.

My whole argument is re the forward speed thru the air on the ground. If the forward speed on the ground is matched by the same speed in the opposite direction, you won't get airflow and therefore no lift!
Treadmill fails are funny as it is, but the propeller is a brilliant addition to the equation
User avatar
By eatthis
#3548591
Omni wrote:Bottom line is, nearly everyone who got this wrong initially did so because they wrongly assumed that the conveyor meant the plane wasn't moving forwards and thus no airflow on the wings. It's all in the first 20 or so pages in black and white, then someone came along and said oh yeah but maybe the question could be interpreted like this so it can't happen, and all of a sudden they're all like, 'oh yeah well that's what I meant, it's the question that's wrong.'

It's lucky that there are people here that don't permit such blatant weaselling to persist :salut:

I think the thread should be deleted and started again from scratch, this was 6 years ago now, and even with the relatively intelligent crowd we had back then a fair majority got it wrong initially, one can only wonder at the answers the current breed would produce.

is that directed at anybody in particular?
User avatar
By sn:afu
#3548881
Is your financial situation also a paradox?

And shouldn't you fixing that rather telling us about whether or not a plane on a conveyor will take off?
User avatar
By eatthis
#3548883
sn:afu wrote:Is your financial situation also a paradox?

And shouldn't you fixing that rather telling us about whether or not a plane on a conveyor will take off?
no thats a flip due to several reasons not least of which have been my own actions and im doing both
User avatar
By Liam Type-R
#3549127
sn:afu wrote:Is your financial situation also a paradox?

And shouldn't you fixing that rather telling us about whether or not a plane on a conveyor will take off?
It will btw. [smilie=karls_thumb.gif]

:lol:
User avatar
By Cockpiss Analfist
#3549223
Omni wrote:Bottom line is, nearly everyone who got this wrong initially did so because they wrongly assumed that the conveyor meant the plane wasn't moving forwards and thus no airflow on the wings. It's all in the first 20 or so pages in black and white, then someone came along and said oh yeah but maybe the question could be interpreted like this so it can't happen, and all of a sudden they're all like, 'oh yeah well that's what I meant, it's the question that's wrong.'

It's lucky that there are people here that don't permit such blatant weaselling to persist :salut:

I think the thread should be deleted and started again from scratch, this was 6 years ago now, and even with the relatively intelligent crowd we had back then a fair majority got it wrong initially, one can only wonder at the answers the current breed would produce.

I will admit I voted "i'm a mong" to avoid thinking about it.
User avatar
By Superbully
#3554471
The comments below that echo this forum and i'm sure almost the whole world over engaged in discussion if it would take off or not :lol:
User avatar
By steve83
#3675463
Thought i would bump this, as there appears to be few more mongs about.

Needs moar eatthis
  • 1
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140

Long time ago I had and Ep3 for 220k kilometers in[…]