Hey Adam, I REALLY like you, Jamie, Tori, Kari, and Grant, and the rest of the Mythbusters crew for what you did bringing us 8+ years of Mythbusting greatness and hilarity. A few years ago, my mom, dad, and I went to the Mythbusters live on stage show you and Jamie did in Detroit. I wish the show could have gone on for at least 2 more seasons. Alas, all good and great things must to an end I suppose. But I'm glad you are on TH-cam doing and talking about things you enjoy. I hope you and the other members of the Mythcrew stay safe and have fun. 😄👍😄👍
I mean, if there was such a conveyor belt that it kept the plane stationary with respect to the ground, and there was not wind, it would come down to “is there enough air flowing around the wings for the force of lift to exceed the influence of gravitation (gravity isn’t a force 😉).” So, does the belt pull enough wind with it in addition to the source of propulsion (jet?prop?) to generate lift. And certainly, some planes meet that criteria, in specific, very light planes with high lift wings.
I recently read a story about an innocent man that spent 35 years of a life sentence in prison for a crime he didn't commit and he finally found grounds for an appeal when he saw a rerun of Mythbusters in jail that proved his innocence. The detective had beaten the man and made him sign a confession that he started a fire that ended several people by spreading gasoline and then lighting it with a lit cigarette. The episode he saw was the one where Mythbusters proved it's impossible to light gasoline with a lit cigarette. There have been literally thousands of studies since then that also prove it's 100% impossible. The man was finally freed from prison after winning his appeal.
yeah that's a super common misunderstanding. I've seen the demo, and yeah, as long as it hasn't turned into vapor you're fine. obviously, don't do that, but, yeah.
This was explained to me in the mid 90's. My older brother worked a summer job doing clerical work for the Vulcan Blazers Firefighter Advocate Agency. They let him observe this phenomenon (from a safe distance of course) and prove that you can't lite gasoline on fire with a lit cigarette. We were fascinated and that tale has stick with me since, Mythbusters actually giving the story credibility later on
It makes me so mad when they’ll put a person behind bars and destroy their entire life and find out they were wrong all along over something like this, like it wasn’t even DNA evidence it was a test they probably did a century ago with a cigar or something, which implies that there was probably a bunch of other evidence that he was innocent too. Being in jail for 35 years ruins your life, prisons are crime factories, but I’m sure that prosecutor and judge won’t suffer any consequences for it
What Adam said about visualization can be shown all the way back to 1600. Galileo Galilei actually disproved the theory of heavier objects falling faster at the theoretical level first, but his written proof was dismissed outright which led to him going up in the tower and doing the physical demonstration. Galileo should be considered the honorary first Mythbuster.
But heavier objects do fall faster, assuming both object are the same shape and size and drag coefficient. They both encounter the same resistance to their movement through air, but the heavier object overcomes it more easily. This is why a golf ball, though larger than a ping pong ball, will fall faster than the ping pong ball. In a theoretical environment where there is one gravity but no atmosphere, both would fall at the same speed. So weight is a factor in every scenario involving atmosphere or other interfering matter.
The larger diameter cannon ball does indeed fall a little faster, but the difference is not that much at the distances tested. It largely has to do with the square-cube properties of volume and surface area. Provided they are of the same material, the larger sphere has slightly less aerodynamic drag per unit weight. In a vacuum, they would both fall at the same rate. In fact a hammer and feather will fall at the same rate in a vacuum (as demonstrated on the moon by the Apollo 15 crew).
@@Immolate62 Perhaps a little clarification: the popular theory at that time in Italy was that the rate of fall is in direct proportion to the weight - meaning an object that is twice as heavy would fall twice as fast. Even though density can cause a slight difference due to air resistance, it definitely isn't directly proportional.
I find this question amusing. Having recently binged all of Mythbusters (at least, where Adam and Jamie hosted), Adam brings up why they test such myths multiple times over the course of the show. In fact, there are several pre-myth blueprint room scenes where Adam brings up a myth, Jamie says "it's patently ridiculous, this is a solved problem," and Adam says "and yet there is much debate even when people are given the math, and so there are audience members who will likely not be convinced until we show them." This format happens for maybe 4 or 5 myths.
The myth that comes to mind immediately for me is the baseball backwards off a truck. Even Karrie in the edit that went out is like "yay we proved vector addition".
The genius thing in the premise of Mythbusters was the testing of the myth and then the replication of the results. So a myth that on paper breaks the laws of physics was still worth investigating because the show would then posit, "what would it take for this to actually occur?" which to me was the master stroke of the show. The more elaborate and over the top the mechanism for replicating the results became, the further the distance between the myth and the reality became. It sort of became an index for judging how ridiculous a myth actually was.
@@brandondiaz1118 He's wrong because it was never about the plane's wheels on the ground. It's about the belt matching the speed of the plane, but when they tested it they set the belt to a single speed and never changed it.
@@sumelar It still doesn’t matter though, because an airplane’s speed isn’t controlled by the friction of the wheels on the ground. The wheels are just a medium for the plane to move on the ground. Imagine you are swimming while wearing roller blades on a conveyor belt. You could swim even as fast as they conveyor belt is going, because your arms move you through the water
My favorite way to phrase the airplane question is "If the plane is moving forward at 50 mph, and the conveyor is backward at 50 mph, that doesn't mean the plane stays still - it just means the wheels are spinning at 100 mph".
Airplane on a conveyor is my single most favorite myth you guys did though the entire series. The arguments on the internet before that episode aired were spectacular and even after the episode ran the aftermath was nearly as epic. Thanks for doing that myth it is my favorite, despite having known the answer before you guys did it.
I think Plane on a Conveyor Belt was a perfect demonstration of how public discourse in general, and internet discourse in particular, organizes itself in a manner that allows knowledgeable people who are wrong to continue being wrong; knowledgeable people who are wrong are so busy knocking over the arguments of lay people who happen to be right that they never engage with the arguments of the knowledgeable people who are right.
Everyone always assumes a) it's a prop-driven aircraft, if you replace it with a F16 jet, it immediately becomes clear that the 'myth' is a load of propwash ;) - and b) float planes exist. If there's no wheels, and you were taking off from a fast-flowing river, for example, you're still gonna go up!
I think it also points out that science is something that needs experimenting to see what is true or not. I think people collectively believe science is fact, which true when it's done properly, but science requires hypotheses and testing to reach those conclusions.
I love that the blueprint of the show attracted curious passers-by but also curious scientists, even if they were flabbergasted by things that seemed so obvious-proof of why Mythbusters had so much success!
Another great example of this is when Jamie said that two cars hitting head on was the same as one car hitting a wall at twice the speed. When it was tested in an episode, I was sure that line of reasoning was correct. I even called the fans who took issue with the statement "idiots." It was eye opening to be completely wrong about something I believed for so long. I'm glad I had that experience, I always admit when I know I'm wrong, it's the arrogance beforehand I need to work on. For me the misconception comes from the fact that two cars will see each other pass at the sum of their speeds, but in a collision, the cars won't stop more suddenly than if they hit a solid wall.
You could reason theoretically about the situation: kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity of an object. That means a car moving at twice the speed has four times the kinetic energy. Even though the other car has no kinetic energy, it still leaves the whole system with double the energy of two cars moving at half the speed. Still nice to see it actually happen before your eyes though. With test dummies, of course!
I think the misconception is what experiences what magnitude of forces in each scenario. When two vehicles collide vs one car hitting a wall at twice the speed, the total amount of energy in the system is the same. However, in the two-car scenario, each car starts with half the energy then transfers that half to the other car.. resulting in each car still having about the same amount of energy (ignoring outside forces). Whereas in the wall-car scenario the wall is (assumingly) solid enough to reflect all (ignoring external forces) the energy back into the car; replace the wall with a stationary car and all the energy gets passed to said stationary car (making it move) leaving none in the moving car (making it stationary).
This might be your best explanation of this, to date. I still hadn't made the connection that the wheels do not have anything to do with the propulsion of the plane, even though I know that the propeller or engines are what make it go. I had a mental block, until this explanation.
Adam, I loved Mythbusters growing up and this channel now, thanks for doing what you do! The key piece of the airplane on a treadmill that seems to be the missing link between sides of the argument, is that if the plane is going 80mph down the runway, and the treadmill is moving at 80mph in the other directions the wheels are spinning at a combined 160mph. Basically the misunderstanding between air speed and ground speed.
I so get the part about needing physical imaging. In college I was having trouble plotting curves. My instructor laid out the x y on the blackboard, yes chalk on a blackboard, opened the book to a random equation laid out the curve and then proved the math. He could see it in his head, I and most people can't.
I know you have explained the Plane on a Convayer Belt myth MANY times.... But this explanation is the first time I fully understood it. I've watched that episode at least 3 times, I've listened to you talk about it on Tested and on your podcast... But only now did I finally understand it!! Thank you for such a great explanation!
I love this explanation. I think another myth that sounded ridiculous on paper was the bull in a china shop. But the fact that you guys had the means to replicate the myth and the reason to do it (be it scientific or to entertain the masses while raking in advertiser dough) made it worth while.
With airplane on a conveyor some people imagine the conveyor matching the speed of the wheels which would be impossible unless the conveyor is going so fast that the friction in the wheel bearings keeps the plane from moving forward. If you look at the wheel speed you'd see that for any reasonable conveyor speed it can't match the wheel speed.
Plane on a Conveyor Belt was super interesting to wrap your head around...I'd also say the Monty Hall problem which was also debated for a long time was also good to watch on Mythbusters
This was one of the things that made the show great. For some numbers and data on paper is enough. For others you have to do the experiment. There's no right or wrong way. Sometimes it just comes down to it can't hurt to try and see what happens and the results can be an eye opener for all.
I have to say the airplane episode I thought at first it wouldn't be able to but during your testing it "clicked" for me and I couldn't believe I thought the other way. Once I got it that the tires are independent of the craft. Maybe they might turn a bit faster but the wheels are basically in neutral.
The first time I heard the airplane on a conveyor question I asked the guy what the airspeed of the plane was. He didn't understand the question. I'm still puzzled by how that happens.
Adam, whenever I watch one of your videos they make me smile and they brighten up my day. I stair at my screen with so much wonderment and interest to the point of making a Ghostbusters proton pack and having just finished an original series star trek phaser prop I'd say I'm fairly good at making, I owe it all to you, thanks a million.
My honest opinion on people dropping pennies from the top of the Empire State building is that people either don't care or literally don't think about it before doing it. I suspect they think "this will be interesting/fun!" and that's the extent of it. There is enough potential risk of an injury enough to cause a lawsuit (or even just being kind to your fellow humans) that if people thought it through all the way they probably wouldn't do it, and the number of pennies on the building's lower tiers suggests to me they may not be thinking too much about it
The "crunch the numbers on paper" thing doesn't always work. The downwind faster than the wind car (blackbird) that veritasium tested to prove it worked, alot of physics professors didn't think it would work, for obvious reason. They had to test it to prove for certain that it worked
I think the biggest issue of the wind powered faster that wind car is that people keep doing the math with the wrong frame of reference. It's not that physics fails but that people aren't capable of framing the problem right without the expirement so they solve the wrong problem correctly and end up with the wrong answer.
@@xidarian agreed 100%. I think it was left ambiguous so that the "secret" wouldn't be given away or else they wouldn't have been able to win the bet. If I remember correctly, it wasn't the angle of the blade acting like a screw does to force air for thrust - however, it was the shape of the blade that gave it "lift" using Bernoulli's principle. Knowing how ship sails work helps in this case.
The problem is that it proves 2 things; stationary planes cannot lift off without 'aero friction', and that the speed of the wheels/ground is irrelevant because the power source is not connected to the surface. In theory any plane can take off while stationary, if the headwind is stable and strong enough to give it lift. It would be a totally different story if you matched a rear wind speed while trying to take off.
As soon as he finished reading the question, I knew he was going to Airplane on A Conveyor belt to explain. I had the same discussion with my wife when she watched it. She didn’t think it would work, no matter how I tried to explain it. She had to see the result before understanding the theory.
I have learned that if someone asks you a question in your area of your expertise, they don't want an answer, they want validation for what they settled as their solution. If your answer doesn't fit they simply say "no, that's not it". I now just say " I don't know", it ends what would end in an argument anyway.
There are bush planes in places like Alaska that can land on a dime, and take off in like 10 feet! Somehow thinking that the wheels spinning backwards will alter how the wings and propellor work seems insane to me, but not everyone knows the 4 forces that make airplanes work (thrust-drag-lift-gravity).
YESTERDAY!!! I saw a video of a guy propelling himself by a leaf blower aimed at an umbrella. Comments full of "experts", "That's not possible! It defies physics!!" So, I commented by posting the video of Myth busters "Blowing your own sail" :)
Tires for airliners have a speed rating of 225 to 235 miles per hour. They will occasionally exceed the speed rating by taking off downwind, raising the nose too late, or not raising the nose high enough. Doubling the wheel speed by pulling the runway in the opposite direction would cause the tires to fail. But with engines capable of pushing the plane at 600 mph, not much is going to hold it back.
I know I am not a patrion but but I would have loved to ask how would Mythbusters tacked this potential myth about Titanic "The duel order of hard starboard all back is what doomed the ship. How would Mythbusters handle if the order was either all back or hard starboard and what order would have saved the ship?"
I suspect they would have started with a scale model, then moved up to a boat that is considerably smaller than the titanic, but still a reasonably sized boat.
I LOVE the conveyer belt / airplane situation. I remember being utterly confused for a long time how it was possible until realizing that the planes wheels can spin hundreds of times faster than the take off speed of the plane and it won't matter. Then it was a light bulb going off and utter shock.
After years you finally said it a way i understood . Idk why i just never got it before, but saying the wheels are just there to keep the propeller off the ground and the propeller is a screw finally made it click for me
thats why i like mythbusters, because alot of times i thought i knew something and was so sure of it but turns out i was misinformed and it changed my opinion on things. im sure im not the only one as well.
There's just a fundamental difference between a theoretical proof (which is great, and important to have), and a practical demonstration that includes the process of determining what is being tested and how to adequately test it. All of those are valuable components to understanding something truly and fully.
One of the most important take-homes for me from Mythbusters, and also heavily influenced by my early false starts in the Linux community, is this: There are no questions too stupid to be worth asking and answering. Y'all tackled some patently obvious myths, but you always did so with _rigor_ and took them seriously all the way through to the conclusion, and that's profound.
I constantly have to remind my stepdad (who keeps yapping when mom and me are trying to watch the show) that it's still part entertainment, and if it wasn't it'd be a whitepaper or something, and who reads those for an evening of fun?
It’s all about framing. If people were first asked if planes take off by pushing on the air or ground, and then offered the correct explanation and answer, then leading them to the result of the myth is easy. But the trick is the question-it contains irrelevant information to perhaps intentionally confuse the other person.
Well today I discovered that planes only use the wheels to keep the plane upright. I knew how planes work but I didn't _understand_ until now. Thank you for taking the time to briefly explain
When Dan Tapster and I thought we saw a means for testing it, (plane on a conveyor) it generated a lot of interest. It already had been a hot topic. Or so it seemed, being 17th as an episode. But, since, more and more tell me they disliked the episode. I don't get it.
Basically, there are two fundamental differences in aviation, Airspeed & Ground speed! They may match and they are also not mutually exclusive, but they are not connected to one another!
I agree that the question was tricky. I was always under the assumption that the plane would remain stationary and just lift off, but the episode clearly demonstrates that it moved forward. There needs to be sufficient air flow under the wing to provide lift. A plane with a propeller pushes air under the wing, but what about a jet that only provides forward thrust? The only way the air speeds up under the wing is by forward movement.
I've actually always found the more interesting question about the plane on a runway to be: "How fast will the conveyor be moving by the time the plane takes off?" Given we know the plane is dragged through the air by moving the air, it means that the moment the wheels start rotating (because the plane is moving through the air), the conveyor will attempt to match the speed. Except the plane is accelerating, still... so... the conveyor will be accelerating, still... and given the plane will move at a normal, predictable speed regardless of the conveyor speed, the conveyor will accelerate indefinitely so long as the plane remains in contact with the conveyor. I'm not smart enough to do the math on this, but I bet somebody could do the math... I suspect you'd need to do something like finding the rotational acceleration vector of the wheel, and the length of buildup to takeoff, and there will likely be some predefined equation that utilises these things. My intuition says the wheels of the plane would be rotating at least twice as fast as normal.
The reason to test it is that it's amazing how many times scientists/engineers get it wrong. How many times on the show did you get a result that wasn't as expected?
There is some friction in the wheel bearings so if the conveyor belt goes extremely fast it could stop the propeller from moving the plane forward, but never by matching the plane's forward speed because of simple logic (the plane has a forward speed ergo it is moving forward).
Can you talk about how engineering and it’s principles played a role in mythbusters, you guys are the reason I’m going to school to become a mech. engineer, also just put you guys into a paper I hade to write(she loved it)
There will be a speed where the conveyor's speed plus the plane's forward speed could cause the wheel bearings to heat and start to seize, acting like a brake on the wheel. The plane's propulsion would have to overcome this drag.
I was thinking the very thing myself. The issue is that the speed of the conveyor would have to be so fast that it is no longer relevant to the realistic experiment at hand.
How much difference would there be in 'airplane on a treadmill' if the airplane wheels could not free-spin (frozen/locked/etc.)? Could a small engine, single prop airplane overcome the friction of, say, 3 semi-deflated, soft rubber tires with ~3x6" of surface contact? Unwheeled pontoons of a seaplane?
The other thing about actually testing it rather than just saying “a plane will take off on a conveyer belt” is that it will show people why which is IMO more important. Yeah it’s great that people will have that answer but if they don’t understand why then the same myth will come around again but packaged in a slightly different way
The real question isn't whether the plane can take off, but whether the pilot can jump in and get the plane off the conveyor before it goes over the cliff.
If the runway was going faster than the rolling resistance of the wheels creating drag to keep the plane stationary under thrust, it couldn't take off. The plane would have bigger issues than not taking off, as the resistance would create so much heat as it'd probably set the plane on fire.
I'm wondering if the airplane pilot believed there would be enough rolling resistance between the plane's wheels and the tarp to drag the plane backwards. That means the plane would be moving backwards through the airflow, subtracting that negative airspeed from the forward speed created by the propellers would rob it of the lift it needs to take off. Of course, it would be a mistake to assume that would happen because the rolling resistance of the wheels must be low enough to allow the weight of the plane to roll forward during a normal take off, too. The wheels don't know if the plane is being pulled forward by the propellers or if the ground is being dragged backwards, they will operate the same.
That myth was a stupid one, i mean the ONLY factor here is the wheels on the plane would be rotating twice as fast, and may offer the smallest of friction effect, thats the only effect at work here
So I have a question, and forgive me if this was shown in myth busters or something, but I couldn't find it. Adam, did you try a negitive test in your wind tunnel? Like drop something in that should not tumble and see that it did not go up and down?
Simple; the landing gear wheel velocity is not coupled to the forward momentum of the airfoil lift. The lift comes from the propellor, not the wheels spinning in the opposite direction!
It always bothered me that people believed that myth, it was just so _obviously_ wrong. With a strong enough headwind, a plane could be going _backwards_ and still take off (don't try that). The speed of the wheels, relative ground motion, it's all inconsequential because the ground isn't its medium, the air is.
technically, its airspeed over the WINGS that matters/and, or jet/propellers pulling enough air through them. How about we cheat and use a Harrier Jumpjet, or the Eurofighter, which are both planes that can take off vertically...?
The aeroplane is a good one. Seems obvious to me in the same way it is to you. But the vehement arguments were interesting. Being right is not enough. You have to explain things in a way that others also realise the answer is obvious. It's a test of writing skill more than it is a test of knowledge. On that subject, I was most interested when you made a large scale replica of the five-ball executive desk toy. I'm a retired engineer and, for me, energy is the most important single thing in this world. You proved the small scale toy worked fine but you could never get the large scale toy to work. The reason is energy. Every metal object has elasticity. If you make a small relative change, the metal object will shrink or stretch, but it will return to its original size when you let go of it. That's because it will release all the energy that you put in with an impact. If, as you demonstrated with the big scale model, you leave a permanent dent or chip a piece off, you have made a permanent energy change. The energy required to make a dent cannot be returned. You have removed energy and the balls must slow down because of this. Maybe someone has already had this discussion with you on this subject, but I was extremely frustrated watching the show, knowing I knew what was going on, but unable to share the knowledge with you. I loved Mythbusters, until it degenerated into nothing more than a sequence of guns and explosions. I feel every TV script writer gradually runs out of energy (energy again) until they rely continuously on flashes and bangs, like a fourth of July fireworks display. I'm loving TESTED because of your honesty and your personality. It's like sitting down with a buddy for a chat at the coffee shop.
The only way I can see a conveyor belt stopping a plane taking off is if it gets the wheels spinning so fast that they catastrophically fail and the plane can’t roll anymore.
This is the argument I see most often when people ask this question. People will argue all day that the question said the belt will match the wheel speed therefor if the plane moved forward at all, the belt would spin up to infinity and beyond, making it impossible the plane would ever be able to move forward.
@@Darkkrebs It could happen with large commercial planes, a heavy 747 can need around 170-180 knots to take off. At those speeds the wheels would be going around 400 mph at which I wouldn't trust a rubber wheel not to blow out.
@@michaelsteinbach Yeah, the wheels will always have a surplus compared to the conveyor belt because the wheels have help from the propellor/engine, so the conveyor belt has to keep speeding up to compensate for both, which actually seems pretty impossible, since each tug backwards also increases the wheels' turning speed. I don't really do infinities, so it is much more likely that the wheels/bearings give out and the plane would have to start dragging itself forward. And with such high friction contact points and the conveyor belt moving.. it'll just be a mess and possibly a crash. If they had matched rear winds with headwinds, it would've basically created an air bubble, and even if the plane moved forwards, it could go as fast as it wants, but inside that vacuum bubble it will just not be able to lift off.
It would’ve been interesting to see a plane sitting on low-resistance rotors so that unlike the conveyor belt, the plane was unable to move and therefore wouldn't be able to take off.
Plane on a conveyor belt! This is like the 3rd time I hear the explanation and I somehow always fail to remember why the plane takes off. Even though I remember that it does. I'm sure if I'd watched the actual episode the explanation would have stuck to my head better, which again goes to show that there is still a point to doing the experiment even if the numbers already spell out the result.
Want to fuse the toner? Try a laminator. They are cheap and the heater may be adjustable. The knobs you are looking for have what are called skirts. I remember seeing them on Collins Ham radios also old plane instruments might work. Look at some pictures of old airplanes with many knobs. It looks like they’re hundreds of knobs.
It’s the same reason Windows is much more popular than Linux. People tend to want a visual representation of things happening than not. That’s why there’s a special “Copy File” window just to copy files.
I don't understand the conveyor belt situation. Why not put the airplane on a roller wheel dynamometer where the wheels can always spin faster if the plane stays in place? The obvious follow up question: Why have runways if you can install a roller wheel dynamometer and have planes take off from a small area, especially on aircraft carriers? Are the runways just for landings?
Join this channel to support Tested and get access to perks, like asking Adam questions:
th-cam.com/channels/iDJtJKMICpb9B1qf7qjEOA.htmljoin
Love❤ from India🇮🇳.
Legend {~~}
{●●}
Adam your mythbusters fans miss you please come back the new mythbusters didn't succeed
Hey Adam, I REALLY like you, Jamie, Tori, Kari, and Grant, and the rest of the Mythbusters crew for what you did bringing us 8+ years of Mythbusting greatness and hilarity. A few years ago, my mom, dad, and I went to the Mythbusters live on stage show you and Jamie did in Detroit. I wish the show could have gone on for at least 2 more seasons. Alas, all good and great things must to an end I suppose. But I'm glad you are on TH-cam doing and talking about things you enjoy. I hope you and the other members of the Mythcrew stay safe and have fun.
😄👍😄👍
I mean, if there was such a conveyor belt that it kept the plane stationary with respect to the ground, and there was not wind, it would come down to “is there enough air flowing around the wings for the force of lift to exceed the influence of gravitation (gravity isn’t a force 😉).”
So, does the belt pull enough wind with it in addition to the source of propulsion (jet?prop?) to generate lift. And certainly, some planes meet that criteria, in specific, very light planes with high lift wings.
I recently read a story about an innocent man that spent 35 years of a life sentence in prison for a crime he didn't commit and he finally found grounds for an appeal when he saw a rerun of Mythbusters in jail that proved his innocence. The detective had beaten the man and made him sign a confession that he started a fire that ended several people by spreading gasoline and then lighting it with a lit cigarette. The episode he saw was the one where Mythbusters proved it's impossible to light gasoline with a lit cigarette. There have been literally thousands of studies since then that also prove it's 100% impossible. The man was finally freed from prison after winning his appeal.
yeah that's a super common misunderstanding. I've seen the demo, and yeah, as long as it hasn't turned into vapor you're fine.
obviously, don't do that, but, yeah.
This was explained to me in the mid 90's. My older brother worked a summer job doing clerical work for the Vulcan Blazers Firefighter Advocate Agency.
They let him observe this phenomenon (from a safe distance of course) and prove that you can't lite gasoline on fire with a lit cigarette.
We were fascinated and that tale has stick with me since, Mythbusters actually giving the story credibility later on
It makes me so mad when they’ll put a person behind bars and destroy their entire life and find out they were wrong all along over something like this, like it wasn’t even DNA evidence it was a test they probably did a century ago with a cigar or something, which implies that there was probably a bunch of other evidence that he was innocent too. Being in jail for 35 years ruins your life, prisons are crime factories, but I’m sure that prosecutor and judge won’t suffer any consequences for it
Why use a cigarette if you have a means of lighting cigarettes to begin with?
What Adam said about visualization can be shown all the way back to 1600. Galileo Galilei actually disproved the theory of heavier objects falling faster at the theoretical level first, but his written proof was dismissed outright which led to him going up in the tower and doing the physical demonstration. Galileo should be considered the honorary first Mythbuster.
But heavier objects do fall faster, assuming both object are the same shape and size and drag coefficient. They both encounter the same resistance to their movement through air, but the heavier object overcomes it more easily. This is why a golf ball, though larger than a ping pong ball, will fall faster than the ping pong ball. In a theoretical environment where there is one gravity but no atmosphere, both would fall at the same speed. So weight is a factor in every scenario involving atmosphere or other interfering matter.
Could he of just gotten a big and small rock and drop them at the same time? Don’t take genius.
The larger diameter cannon ball does indeed fall a little faster, but the difference is not that much at the distances tested. It largely has to do with the square-cube properties of volume and surface area. Provided they are of the same material, the larger sphere has slightly less aerodynamic drag per unit weight. In a vacuum, they would both fall at the same rate. In fact a hammer and feather will fall at the same rate in a vacuum (as demonstrated on the moon by the Apollo 15 crew).
@@Immolate62 Perhaps a little clarification: the popular theory at that time in Italy was that the rate of fall is in direct proportion to the weight - meaning an object that is twice as heavy would fall twice as fast. Even though density can cause a slight difference due to air resistance, it definitely isn't directly proportional.
Did he ever actually go up into the tower? I thought it was just a thought experiment
I find this question amusing. Having recently binged all of Mythbusters (at least, where Adam and Jamie hosted), Adam brings up why they test such myths multiple times over the course of the show. In fact, there are several pre-myth blueprint room scenes where Adam brings up a myth, Jamie says "it's patently ridiculous, this is a solved problem," and Adam says "and yet there is much debate even when people are given the math, and so there are audience members who will likely not be convinced until we show them." This format happens for maybe 4 or 5 myths.
The myth that comes to mind immediately for me is the baseball backwards off a truck. Even Karrie in the edit that went out is like "yay we proved vector addition".
The genius thing in the premise of Mythbusters was the testing of the myth and then the replication of the results. So a myth that on paper breaks the laws of physics was still worth investigating because the show would then posit, "what would it take for this to actually occur?" which to me was the master stroke of the show. The more elaborate and over the top the mechanism for replicating the results became, the further the distance between the myth and the reality became. It sort of became an index for judging how ridiculous a myth actually was.
maybe it's just me, but I'll never get tired of Adam explaining the "plane on a conveyer belt" thing
mostly because he is wrong
Prove it, he proved why he is right now you prove why he is wrong if thats what you believe
@@justayoutuber1906 Spamming your bullshit under every comment mentioning it won't make you correct. Cope and mald, bud.
@@brandondiaz1118 He's wrong because it was never about the plane's wheels on the ground. It's about the belt matching the speed of the plane, but when they tested it they set the belt to a single speed and never changed it.
@@sumelar It still doesn’t matter though, because an airplane’s speed isn’t controlled by the friction of the wheels on the ground. The wheels are just a medium for the plane to move on the ground. Imagine you are swimming while wearing roller blades on a conveyor belt. You could swim even as fast as they conveyor belt is going, because your arms move you through the water
My favorite way to phrase the airplane question is "If the plane is moving forward at 50 mph, and the conveyor is backward at 50 mph, that doesn't mean the plane stays still - it just means the wheels are spinning at 100 mph".
Airplane on a conveyor is my single most favorite myth you guys did though the entire series. The arguments on the internet before that episode aired were spectacular and even after the episode ran the aftermath was nearly as epic. Thanks for doing that myth it is my favorite, despite having known the answer before you guys did it.
It's a wonderful example of a problem that's clear when you set it up right, but has hooks to snag our intuition before we get to the right setup.
it was show to be tested incorrectly.
As the episodes get old this myth is resurfacing very quickly and a ton of people are misinformed again
People are still arguing over it for sure.
But without understanding of the theory an experiment/demonstration is reduced to a magic trick.
I think Plane on a Conveyor Belt was a perfect demonstration of how public discourse in general, and internet discourse in particular, organizes itself in a manner that allows knowledgeable people who are wrong to continue being wrong; knowledgeable people who are wrong are so busy knocking over the arguments of lay people who happen to be right that they never engage with the arguments of the knowledgeable people who are right.
Everyone always assumes a) it's a prop-driven aircraft, if you replace it with a F16 jet, it immediately becomes clear that the 'myth' is a load of propwash ;) - and b) float planes exist. If there's no wheels, and you were taking off from a fast-flowing river, for example, you're still gonna go up!
Indeed, the last 2 years was a strong reminder of that.
I think it also points out that science is something that needs experimenting to see what is true or not. I think people collectively believe science is fact, which true when it's done properly, but science requires hypotheses and testing to reach those conclusions.
That particular myth showed me just how many dumb smart people I know.
But the plane would fail if the wheels spun off. Lol
I love that the blueprint of the show attracted curious passers-by but also curious scientists, even if they were flabbergasted by things that seemed so obvious-proof of why Mythbusters had so much success!
Adam's once weekly explanation of the airplane conveyor belt
Another great example of this is when Jamie said that two cars hitting head on was the same as one car hitting a wall at twice the speed. When it was tested in an episode, I was sure that line of reasoning was correct. I even called the fans who took issue with the statement "idiots." It was eye opening to be completely wrong about something I believed for so long. I'm glad I had that experience, I always admit when I know I'm wrong, it's the arrogance beforehand I need to work on. For me the misconception comes from the fact that two cars will see each other pass at the sum of their speeds, but in a collision, the cars won't stop more suddenly than if they hit a solid wall.
You could reason theoretically about the situation: kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity of an object. That means a car moving at twice the speed has four times the kinetic energy. Even though the other car has no kinetic energy, it still leaves the whole system with double the energy of two cars moving at half the speed.
Still nice to see it actually happen before your eyes though. With test dummies, of course!
I think the misconception is what experiences what magnitude of forces in each scenario.
When two vehicles collide vs one car hitting a wall at twice the speed, the total amount of energy in the system is the same. However, in the two-car scenario, each car starts with half the energy then transfers that half to the other car.. resulting in each car still having about the same amount of energy (ignoring outside forces). Whereas in the wall-car scenario the wall is (assumingly) solid enough to reflect all (ignoring external forces) the energy back into the car; replace the wall with a stationary car and all the energy gets passed to said stationary car (making it move) leaving none in the moving car (making it stationary).
@@Roccondil see my point above, the total energy is not the same in both scenarios.
EXACTLY! 50mph to 0 is 50mph to 0 no matter what causes you to stop
This might be your best explanation of this, to date. I still hadn't made the connection that the wheels do not have anything to do with the propulsion of the plane, even though I know that the propeller or engines are what make it go. I had a mental block, until this explanation.
I love that I’m starting to recognize the names of the crew and also Adam’s favourite science moments
Adam, I loved Mythbusters growing up and this channel now, thanks for doing what you do! The key piece of the airplane on a treadmill that seems to be the missing link between sides of the argument, is that if the plane is going 80mph down the runway, and the treadmill is moving at 80mph in the other directions the wheels are spinning at a combined 160mph. Basically the misunderstanding between air speed and ground speed.
I so get the part about needing physical imaging.
In college I was having trouble plotting curves.
My instructor laid out the x y on the blackboard, yes chalk on a blackboard, opened the book to a random equation laid out the curve and then proved the math. He could see it in his head, I and most people can't.
I know you have explained the Plane on a Convayer Belt myth MANY times.... But this explanation is the first time I fully understood it. I've watched that episode at least 3 times, I've listened to you talk about it on Tested and on your podcast... But only now did I finally understand it!! Thank you for such a great explanation!
I love this explanation. I think another myth that sounded ridiculous on paper was the bull in a china shop. But the fact that you guys had the means to replicate the myth and the reason to do it (be it scientific or to entertain the masses while raking in advertiser dough) made it worth while.
One of the ones I was glad Mythbusters tested was Star Trek Arena Gorn cannon because I was not sure if that was practical or not.
With airplane on a conveyor some people imagine the conveyor matching the speed of the wheels which would be impossible unless the conveyor is going so fast that the friction in the wheel bearings keeps the plane from moving forward. If you look at the wheel speed you'd see that for any reasonable conveyor speed it can't match the wheel speed.
Plane on a Conveyor Belt was super interesting to wrap your head around...I'd also say the Monty Hall problem which was also debated for a long time was also good to watch on Mythbusters
This was one of the things that made the show great. For some numbers and data on paper is enough. For others you have to do the experiment. There's no right or wrong way. Sometimes it just comes down to it can't hurt to try and see what happens and the results can be an eye opener for all.
I have to say the airplane episode I thought at first it wouldn't be able to but during your testing it "clicked" for me and I couldn't believe I thought the other way. Once I got it that the tires are independent of the craft. Maybe they might turn a bit faster but the wheels are basically in neutral.
The first time I heard the airplane on a conveyor question I asked the guy what the airspeed of the plane was. He didn't understand the question. I'm still puzzled by how that happens.
Makes a huge difference.
Adam, whenever I watch one of your videos they make me smile and they brighten up my day. I stair at my screen with so much wonderment and interest to the point of making a Ghostbusters proton pack and having just finished an original series star trek phaser prop I'd say I'm fairly good at making, I owe it all to you, thanks a million.
So enjoyable listening to you talk about your elation with the penny wind tunnel Adam. As always; thanks for the great content.
As an engineer myself, I loved pausing the show and crunching the numbers and seeing how well my predictions lined up with the results.
(How close we were was based on how good of an engineer we were)
My honest opinion on people dropping pennies from the top of the Empire State building is that people either don't care or literally don't think about it before doing it. I suspect they think "this will be interesting/fun!" and that's the extent of it. There is enough potential risk of an injury enough to cause a lawsuit (or even just being kind to your fellow humans) that if people thought it through all the way they probably wouldn't do it, and the number of pennies on the building's lower tiers suggests to me they may not be thinking too much about it
The "crunch the numbers on paper" thing doesn't always work. The downwind faster than the wind car (blackbird) that veritasium tested to prove it worked, alot of physics professors didn't think it would work, for obvious reason. They had to test it to prove for certain that it worked
I think the biggest issue of the wind powered faster that wind car is that people keep doing the math with the wrong frame of reference. It's not that physics fails but that people aren't capable of framing the problem right without the expirement so they solve the wrong problem correctly and end up with the wrong answer.
@@xidarian agreed 100%. I think it was left ambiguous so that the "secret" wouldn't be given away or else they wouldn't have been able to win the bet. If I remember correctly, it wasn't the angle of the blade acting like a screw does to force air for thrust - however, it was the shape of the blade that gave it "lift" using Bernoulli's principle. Knowing how ship sails work helps in this case.
The problem is that it proves 2 things; stationary planes cannot lift off without 'aero friction', and that the speed of the wheels/ground is irrelevant because the power source is not connected to the surface.
In theory any plane can take off while stationary, if the headwind is stable and strong enough to give it lift.
It would be a totally different story if you matched a rear wind speed while trying to take off.
There are a lot of stuff out there that is easy to understand with basic knowledge. That does not make it less fun to ask the question.
Half the fun was watching them do the builds to perform the experiment. I didn't care if I already had the answer. The other half was their antics.
As soon as he finished reading the question, I knew he was going to Airplane on A Conveyor belt to explain. I had the same discussion with my wife when she watched it. She didn’t think it would work, no matter how I tried to explain it. She had to see the result before understanding the theory.
I have learned that if someone asks you a question in your area of your expertise, they don't want an answer, they want validation for what they settled as their solution. If your answer doesn't fit they simply say "no, that's not it". I now just say " I don't know", it ends what would end in an argument anyway.
There are bush planes in places like Alaska that can land on a dime, and take off in like 10 feet!
Somehow thinking that the wheels spinning backwards will alter how the wings and propellor work seems insane to me, but not everyone knows the 4 forces that make airplanes work (thrust-drag-lift-gravity).
YESTERDAY!!! I saw a video of a guy propelling himself by a leaf blower aimed at an umbrella. Comments full of "experts", "That's not possible! It defies physics!!" So, I commented by posting the video of Myth busters "Blowing your own sail" :)
Tires for airliners have a speed rating of 225 to 235 miles per hour. They will occasionally exceed the speed rating by taking off downwind, raising the nose too late, or not raising the nose high enough. Doubling the wheel speed by pulling the runway in the opposite direction would cause the tires to fail. But with engines capable of pushing the plane at 600 mph, not much is going to hold it back.
Good point. As a practical matter, excessive speed of the tires and brakes could be an issue.
Myth busters is a precious part of my childhood. Thank you all for that.
I know I am not a patrion but but I would have loved to ask how would Mythbusters tacked this potential myth about Titanic "The duel order of hard starboard all back is what doomed the ship. How would Mythbusters handle if the order was either all back or hard starboard and what order would have saved the ship?"
I suspect they would have started with a scale model, then moved up to a boat that is considerably smaller than the titanic, but still a reasonably sized boat.
@@godminnette2 Seems likely - similar to the Hindenburg myth
I LOVE the conveyer belt / airplane situation. I remember being utterly confused for a long time how it was possible until realizing that the planes wheels can spin hundreds of times faster than the take off speed of the plane and it won't matter. Then it was a light bulb going off and utter shock.
Except that there is limit to how fast a wheel can rotate before the tire comes apart..
After years you finally said it a way i understood . Idk why i just never got it before, but saying the wheels are just there to keep the propeller off the ground and the propeller is a screw finally made it click for me
thats why i like mythbusters, because alot of times i thought i knew something and was so sure of it but turns out i was misinformed and it changed my opinion on things. im sure im not the only one as well.
Thanks!
This is such a good answer! I will take this lesson with me forever now as I continue by career in storytelling. Thanks as always Adam :)
There's just a fundamental difference between a theoretical proof (which is great, and important to have), and a practical demonstration that includes the process of determining what is being tested and how to adequately test it.
All of those are valuable components to understanding something truly and fully.
That was one of your best exclamations ever. And also thoroughly enjoyable. Thank you for sharing part of your personal journey with us.
Ground move, air don't. Car pull on ground, can't go forward. Plane pull air, plane go forward. Thank.
One of the most important take-homes for me from Mythbusters, and also heavily influenced by my early false starts in the Linux community, is this: There are no questions too stupid to be worth asking and answering. Y'all tackled some patently obvious myths, but you always did so with _rigor_ and took them seriously all the way through to the conclusion, and that's profound.
"on paper" you shouldnt be able to move a boat while a fan mounted on it, is blowing into a sail... until it was tried in one episode...
damn... nice try scam bot... reported
I constantly have to remind my stepdad (who keeps yapping when mom and me are trying to watch the show) that it's still part entertainment, and if it wasn't it'd be a whitepaper or something, and who reads those for an evening of fun?
It’s all about framing. If people were first asked if planes take off by pushing on the air or ground, and then offered the correct explanation and answer, then leading them to the result of the myth is easy. But the trick is the question-it contains irrelevant information to perhaps intentionally confuse the other person.
My favorite part of the show was seeing just how far they would go to test a myth no matter how ridiculous the myth was.
Well today I discovered that planes only use the wheels to keep the plane upright. I knew how planes work but I didn't _understand_ until now. Thank you for taking the time to briefly explain
When Dan Tapster and I thought we saw a means for testing it, (plane on a conveyor) it generated a lot of interest. It already had been a hot topic. Or so it seemed, being 17th as an episode.
But, since, more and more tell me they disliked the episode. I don't get it.
Basically, there are two fundamental differences in aviation, Airspeed & Ground speed! They may match and they are also not mutually exclusive, but they are not connected to one another!
I'm allowed to live in hope of the return of Mythbusters.
Such a analytic awaking! Thank you!
Airplane on a conveyor belt is like a magic trick, it draws your attention to the wrong place while the real trick takes place somewhere else.
Who wouldn't want to try a myth ? I for one am up for anything lol
id be making up myths that arent even myths just so we can keep building random stuff lol
@@zachmoyer1849 Ditto.
I agree that the question was tricky. I was always under the assumption that the plane would remain stationary and just lift off, but the episode clearly demonstrates that it moved forward. There needs to be sufficient air flow under the wing to provide lift. A plane with a propeller pushes air under the wing, but what about a jet that only provides forward thrust? The only way the air speeds up under the wing is by forward movement.
I've actually always found the more interesting question about the plane on a runway to be:
"How fast will the conveyor be moving by the time the plane takes off?"
Given we know the plane is dragged through the air by moving the air, it means that the moment the wheels start rotating (because the plane is moving through the air), the conveyor will attempt to match the speed. Except the plane is accelerating, still... so... the conveyor will be accelerating, still... and given the plane will move at a normal, predictable speed regardless of the conveyor speed, the conveyor will accelerate indefinitely so long as the plane remains in contact with the conveyor.
I'm not smart enough to do the math on this, but I bet somebody could do the math... I suspect you'd need to do something like finding the rotational acceleration vector of the wheel, and the length of buildup to takeoff, and there will likely be some predefined equation that utilises these things. My intuition says the wheels of the plane would be rotating at least twice as fast as normal.
The reason to test it is that it's amazing how many times scientists/engineers get it wrong. How many times on the show did you get a result that wasn't as expected?
There is some friction in the wheel bearings so if the conveyor belt goes extremely fast it could stop the propeller from moving the plane forward, but never by matching the plane's forward speed because of simple logic (the plane has a forward speed ergo it is moving forward).
Can you talk about how engineering and it’s principles played a role in mythbusters, you guys are the reason I’m going to school to become a mech. engineer, also just put you guys into a paper I hade to write(she loved it)
There will be a speed where the conveyor's speed plus the plane's forward speed could cause the wheel bearings to heat and start to seize, acting like a brake on the wheel. The plane's propulsion would have to overcome this drag.
I was thinking the very thing myself. The issue is that the speed of the conveyor would have to be so fast that it is no longer relevant to the realistic experiment at hand.
How much difference would there be in 'airplane on a treadmill' if the airplane wheels could not free-spin (frozen/locked/etc.)? Could a small engine, single prop airplane overcome the friction of, say, 3 semi-deflated, soft rubber tires with ~3x6" of surface contact? Unwheeled pontoons of a seaplane?
Great video. Love the explanation, Adam!
I really dig listening to Adam answer questions while pointing a gun at me
The other thing about actually testing it rather than just saying “a plane will take off on a conveyer belt” is that it will show people why which is IMO more important. Yeah it’s great that people will have that answer but if they don’t understand why then the same myth will come around again but packaged in a slightly different way
Public demonstration of concepts revealed through science is not only necessary for education, it's necessarily really really cool
They use the word "punter" in that context in England. In Australia, "punter" is a term for a gambler.
The real question isn't whether the plane can take off, but whether the pilot can jump in and get the plane off the conveyor before it goes over the cliff.
I love you Adam keep the great content coming
Just the fact that people argue over the airplane is absoguckinglutely hilarious. I cannot believe……….. well yes I can. Lmao
I'm in the last semester of aeronautical engineering and frankly, for a moment there I was in doubt 😂
What a brilliantly articulated response.
"Soap operas used to sell soap.."
Wait, WHAT? *flies to Google*
Dude, really? The clue is in the NAME....!
If the runway was going faster than the rolling resistance of the wheels creating drag to keep the plane stationary under thrust, it couldn't take off. The plane would have bigger issues than not taking off, as the resistance would create so much heat as it'd probably set the plane on fire.
Just curious, what had more influence on the other. MythBusters or your special effects career?
I'm wondering if the airplane pilot believed there would be enough rolling resistance between the plane's wheels and the tarp to drag the plane backwards.
That means the plane would be moving backwards through the airflow, subtracting that negative airspeed from the forward speed created by the propellers would rob it of the lift it needs to take off.
Of course, it would be a mistake to assume that would happen because the rolling resistance of the wheels must be low enough to allow the weight of the plane to roll forward during a normal take off, too. The wheels don't know if the plane is being pulled forward by the propellers or if the ground is being dragged backwards, they will operate the same.
That myth was a stupid one, i mean the ONLY factor here is the wheels on the plane would be rotating twice as fast, and may offer the smallest of friction effect, thats the only effect at work here
So I have a question, and forgive me if this was shown in myth busters or something, but I couldn't find it. Adam, did you try a negitive test in your wind tunnel? Like drop something in that should not tumble and see that it did not go up and down?
Hi, was wondering if you or anyone else have ever crunched the stats for plausible, confirmed, and busted by category of myth?
Simple; the landing gear wheel velocity is not coupled to the forward momentum of the airfoil lift. The lift comes from the propellor, not the wheels spinning in the opposite direction!
It always bothered me that people believed that myth, it was just so _obviously_ wrong. With a strong enough headwind, a plane could be going _backwards_ and still take off (don't try that). The speed of the wheels, relative ground motion, it's all inconsequential because the ground isn't its medium, the air is.
Likewise. I propose this is one of the questions on the breeding licence application form I'll implement should I ever become king...
technically, its airspeed over the WINGS that matters/and, or jet/propellers pulling enough air through them. How about we cheat and use a Harrier Jumpjet, or the Eurofighter, which are both planes that can take off vertically...?
The aeroplane is a good one. Seems obvious to me in the same way it is to you. But the vehement arguments were interesting. Being right is not enough. You have to explain things in a way that others also realise the answer is obvious. It's a test of writing skill more than it is a test of knowledge.
On that subject, I was most interested when you made a large scale replica of the five-ball executive desk toy. I'm a retired engineer and, for me, energy is the most important single thing in this world.
You proved the small scale toy worked fine but you could never get the large scale toy to work. The reason is energy. Every metal object has elasticity. If you make a small relative change, the metal object will shrink or stretch, but it will return to its original size when you let go of it. That's because it will release all the energy that you put in with an impact.
If, as you demonstrated with the big scale model, you leave a permanent dent or chip a piece off, you have made a permanent energy change. The energy required to make a dent cannot be returned. You have removed energy and the balls must slow down because of this. Maybe someone has already had this discussion with you on this subject, but I was extremely frustrated watching the show, knowing I knew what was going on, but unable to share the knowledge with you.
I loved Mythbusters, until it degenerated into nothing more than a sequence of guns and explosions. I feel every TV script writer gradually runs out of energy (energy again) until they rely continuously on flashes and bangs, like a fourth of July fireworks display.
I'm loving TESTED because of your honesty and your personality. It's like sitting down with a buddy for a chat at the coffee shop.
Your explanation just now... I finally get it! 🤣
The only way I can see a conveyor belt stopping a plane taking off is if it gets the wheels spinning so fast that they catastrophically fail and the plane can’t roll anymore.
That would never happen. A plane would reach take-off speed before its wheels would spin fast enough to break (unless they were really shoddy wheels).
@@ForeverDegenerate I never said it was a LIKELY thing to happen, just that it’s the only way I could see it happening believably.
This is the argument I see most often when people ask this question. People will argue all day that the question said the belt will match the wheel speed therefor if the plane moved forward at all, the belt would spin up to infinity and beyond, making it impossible the plane would ever be able to move forward.
@@Darkkrebs It could happen with large commercial planes, a heavy 747 can need around 170-180 knots to take off. At those speeds the wheels would be going around 400 mph at which I wouldn't trust a rubber wheel not to blow out.
@@michaelsteinbach Yeah, the wheels will always have a surplus compared to the conveyor belt because the wheels have help from the propellor/engine, so the conveyor belt has to keep speeding up to compensate for both, which actually seems pretty impossible, since each tug backwards also increases the wheels' turning speed.
I don't really do infinities, so it is much more likely that the wheels/bearings give out and the plane would have to start dragging itself forward.
And with such high friction contact points and the conveyor belt moving.. it'll just be a mess and possibly a crash.
If they had matched rear winds with headwinds, it would've basically created an air bubble, and even if the plane moved forwards, it could go as fast as it wants, but inside that vacuum bubble it will just not be able to lift off.
My grandfather was watching the helium football episode with me and he did exactly that.
It would’ve been interesting to see a plane sitting on low-resistance rotors so that unlike the conveyor belt, the plane was unable to move and therefore wouldn't be able to take off.
I remember the penny scene and how elated you were and Jamie was like so what? lol
Plane on a conveyor belt! This is like the 3rd time I hear the explanation and I somehow always fail to remember why the plane takes off. Even though I remember that it does. I'm sure if I'd watched the actual episode the explanation would have stuck to my head better, which again goes to show that there is still a point to doing the experiment even if the numbers already spell out the result.
"Can two explosions canceling each other out" was my "do we really need to test this?" moment. There is no such thing as an implosive, 1+1=2 not 0.
the whole thing about that was the prop was providing the airflow over the air fill which will give lift to the wings
Want to fuse the toner? Try a laminator. They are cheap and the heater may be adjustable. The knobs you are looking for have what are called skirts. I
remember seeing them on Collins Ham radios also old plane instruments might work. Look at some pictures of old airplanes with many knobs. It looks like they’re hundreds of knobs.
Did you reply to the right video?
It’s the same reason Windows is much more popular than Linux. People tend to want a visual representation of things happening than not. That’s why there’s a special “Copy File” window just to copy files.
A worthy myth is one that makes for an entertaining test.
havent seen airplane on a conveyor belt but just the notion reminds me of a fan attached to a sailboat blowing at the sail
I don't understand the conveyor belt situation. Why not put the airplane on a roller wheel dynamometer where the wheels can always spin faster if the plane stays in place?
The obvious follow up question: Why have runways if you can install a roller wheel dynamometer and have planes take off from a small area, especially on aircraft carriers? Are the runways just for landings?
Please continue myth busters
Awesome inventions and busting machinery wonders project's wow Amazing show.
Nice Video Adam sir. Thanks for sharing sir.