Science geek brain teasers
-
Three.
-
Wrong. The engines are moving it forward but the belt is moving it backwards at the same speed. As a result its net velocity is zero meaning the wings aren't generating lift so it stays put. The only way it could get aloft is if it's a helicopter/vtol/or it's a windy day and the AC is an ultralight with a takeoff velocity lower than the wind speed. Edit: ooops.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
modified on Tuesday, May 4, 2010 3:53 PM
Mythbusters launched an airplane using these conditions. He's right, the thing just takes off.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Three.
-
Wrong. The engines are moving it forward but the belt is moving it backwards at the same speed. As a result its net velocity is zero meaning the wings aren't generating lift so it stays put. The only way it could get aloft is if it's a helicopter/vtol/or it's a windy day and the AC is an ultralight with a takeoff velocity lower than the wind speed. Edit: ooops.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
modified on Tuesday, May 4, 2010 3:53 PM
That belt is only trying to move it backwards though, and the airplane is not connected to the belt, so while the wheels will spin faster than normally, why would anything out of the ordinary happen? (from the airplanes point of view, he just needs a very high ground-speed to get some decent air-speed)
-
Q. What alcohol and in what quantities will bring Mick to a stand still?
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
That's already been proven to be an unsolvable problem.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
What do you mean? An African or a European swallow?
-
I was thinking that there's enough geeks here - maths, computing, physics, you name it - that we could easily put together a bunch of questions that are answerable by most, but a little tricky. I'll start the ball rolling: Q. In a constant graviational field, how can you accelerate while keeping a steady speed? Hmm - just found braingle.com[^]. There goes a productive day...
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
constant graviational field,
That doesn't exist, since gravitation is always centered around something, unless there would be an inifinite flat disk of matter.
Wout
-
Mythbusters launched an airplane using these conditions. He's right, the thing just takes off.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Mythbusters launched an airplane using these conditions. He's right, the thing just takes off.
I saw that one, even PILOTS got it wrong. Great episode.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
constant graviational field,
That doesn't exist, since gravitation is always centered around something, unless there would be an inifinite flat disk of matter.
Wout
Without matter it exists (and without probe, of course... :rolleyes: ). Moreover physics is the science of approximation, i.e. "there is a limited zone in the space wherein the hypothesys holds with sufficent accuracy..." :)
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
Without matter it exists (and without probe, of course... :rolleyes: ). Moreover physics is the science of approximation, i.e. "there is a limited zone in the space wherein the hypothesys holds with sufficent accuracy..." :)
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles]Ok, suppose it would be constant, then you could not orbit. An orbit implies that the gravitational field is circular!
Wout
-
Indeed. And I can sing most of the songs from Schoolhouse Rock, too. My earliest clear memory is the Apollo 11 landing: it was launched four days after my second birthday. Yes, I'm old ;P
-
And the even more classic Monty Hall problem: Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
I already have a car...
-
I was thinking that there's enough geeks here - maths, computing, physics, you name it - that we could easily put together a bunch of questions that are answerable by most, but a little tricky. I'll start the ball rolling: Q. In a constant graviational field, how can you accelerate while keeping a steady speed? Hmm - just found braingle.com[^]. There goes a productive day...
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Here's a simple one. A scientist is measuring the temperature of a substance, but the label for the units on the thermometer has worn off. At what temperature, would it not matter if it was in Celsius or Fahrenheit?
modified on Tuesday, May 4, 2010 3:34 PM
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
constant graviational field,
That doesn't exist, since gravitation is always centered around something, unless there would be an inifinite flat disk of matter.
Wout
The field on the surface of a sphere centered around a spherical object has constant force.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
Wrong. The engines are moving it forward but the belt is moving it backwards at the same speed. As a result its net velocity is zero meaning the wings aren't generating lift so it stays put. The only way it could get aloft is if it's a helicopter/vtol/or it's a windy day and the AC is an ultralight with a takeoff velocity lower than the wind speed. Edit: ooops.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
modified on Tuesday, May 4, 2010 3:53 PM
No, the airplane will move forward and eventually take of regardless the conveyer belt, because his wheels have nothing to do with the airplane movement.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
The field on the surface of a sphere centered around a spherical object has constant force.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Now you're changing the puzzle, sneaky. Could be a cube too, or an egg, or a turtle.
Wout
-
Indeed. And I can sing most of the songs from Schoolhouse Rock, too. My earliest clear memory is the Apollo 11 landing: it was launched four days after my second birthday. Yes, I'm old ;P
-
Ok, suppose it would be constant, then you could not orbit. An orbit implies that the gravitational field is circular!
Wout
I never agreed with the orbit argument. Anyway the orbit implies a radial field. :)
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
Here's a simple one. A scientist is measuring the temperature of a substance, but the label for the units on the thermometer has worn off. At what temperature, would it not matter if it was in Celsius or Fahrenheit?
modified on Tuesday, May 4, 2010 3:34 PM
At whatever temperature if we don't care about... :-D
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
Here's a simple one. A scientist is measuring the temperature of a substance, but the label for the units on the thermometer has worn off. At what temperature, would it not matter if it was in Celsius or Fahrenheit?
modified on Tuesday, May 4, 2010 3:34 PM
Minus forty?
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.