Ya'll are going to hate me for this but if you put a car on the tread mill under the same conditions the car would move forward, Here is why. The question says the car moves in one direction while the ground moves in the other direction. The point is the you have to base the movement from a fixed object. You can not base the car movement to the moving ground and the moving ground to a non moving ground. You have to base both from the same point or you won't ever start motion. So the car start to accelerate, remember the car has to move to a fixed object before the ground will move in the opposite direction, when the car is moving at 1 mph based on the ground speed the ground is moving the opposite direction at 1 mph but the car speedometer is reading 2 mph. The car has to go 1 mph to keep up with the ground plus 1 mph to achieve to forward movement to make the ground move 1 mph in the other direction.
2002 Electron Blue Vette, 1SC, FE3/Z51, G92 3.15 gears, 308.9 RWHP 321.7 RWTQ (before any mods), SLP headers, Z06 exhaust, MSD Ignition Wires, AC Delco Iridium Spark Plugs, 160 t-stat, lots of ECM tuning
Ya'll are going to hate me for this but if you put a car on the tread mill under the same conditions the car would move forward, Here is why. The question says the car moves in one direction while the ground moves in the other direction. The point is the you have to base the movement from a fixed object. You can not base the car movement to the moving ground and the moving ground to a non moving ground. You have to base both from the same point or you won't ever start motion. So the car start to accelerate, remember the car has to move to a fixed object before the ground will move in the opposite direction, when the car is moving at 1 mph based on the ground speed the ground is moving the opposite direction at 1 mph but the car speedometer is reading 2 mph. The car has to go 1 mph to keep up with the ground plus 1 mph to achieve to forward movement to make the ground move 1 mph in the other direction.
This is where my first post of relative motion comes in to play. From the control tower, the car could move 1 mph forward and the the treadmill move 1 mph backwards... that would mean the wheels are turning at 2 mph.
Or... as observed from the control tower, the car could be stationary if the wheel's velocity exactly matched the treadmill's.
Former Ride: 2002 Pontiac Trans Am WS6 - 345 rwhp, 360 rwtq... stock internally.
Current Ride: 2006 Subaru Legacy GT Limited - spec.B #312 of 500
Your freebody diagram is in error because there is no rearward acceleratory force acting on the plane. The rearward force of acceleration acts upon the wheels only - and because the wheels spin freely, they exert no force on the plane. Therefore, the only acceleratory force on the plane is forward (actually, its rearward, thus moving the plane forward - but you get the idea), and the plane moves and will take off.
You are stuck picturing the same thing I was - a stationary plane to an observer in the control tower - yet in reality, that's a physical impossibility.
Former Ride: 2002 Pontiac Trans Am WS6 - 345 rwhp, 360 rwtq... stock internally.
Current Ride: 2006 Subaru Legacy GT Limited - spec.B #312 of 500
This is where my first post of relative motion comes in to play. From the control tower, the car could move 1 mph forward and the the treadmill move 1 mph backwards... that would mean the wheels are turning at 2 mph.
Or... as observed from the control tower, the car could be stationary if the wheel's velocity exactly matched the treadmill's.
That's correct. The similarity of the car to the plane is that the speed is measured to a non moving point not to the speed of the treadmill or the speed indicator in the car or airplane.
2002 Electron Blue Vette, 1SC, FE3/Z51, G92 3.15 gears, 308.9 RWHP 321.7 RWTQ (before any mods), SLP headers, Z06 exhaust, MSD Ignition Wires, AC Delco Iridium Spark Plugs, 160 t-stat, lots of ECM tuning
Your freebody diagram is in error because there is no rearward acceleratory force acting on the plane. The rearward force of acceleration acts upon the wheels only - and because the wheels spin freely, they exert no force on the plane. Therefore, the only acceleratory force on the plane is forward (actually, its rearward, thus moving the plane forward - but you get the idea), and the plane moves and will take off.
You are stuck picturing the same thing I was - a stationary plane to an observer in the control tower - yet in reality, that's a physical impossibility.
Yet technically there is a drag force acting on the airplane in the opposite direction as the thrust force.
OK, OK... but if you want to get that technical, then you have to take in to account the friction of the bearings and that the wheels actually do exert a miniscule amount of force on the plane in a rearward direction... we have to ignore the small things like that, because the thrust force that moves the plane forward is much, much greater.
Former Ride: 2002 Pontiac Trans Am WS6 - 345 rwhp, 360 rwtq... stock internally.
Current Ride: 2006 Subaru Legacy GT Limited - spec.B #312 of 500
The point is that the force of the engine is being exerted on the air, not the treadmill. The wheels are freewheeling and only used in this application to support weight.
That's it...dangit! I'm calling MythBusters! I'm sure if anyone can come up with a real-world test for this, then they can. Let's all find a way to submit ideas to the show and get those suckers to settle this once and for all! LOL I'm serious. Stop laughing.
That's it...dangit! I'm calling MythBusters! I'm sure if anyone can come up with a real-world test for this, then they can. Let's all find a way to submit ideas to the show and get those suckers to settle this once and for all! LOL I'm serious. Stop laughing.
Comment