You call the server and you order another drink like this, “hey I’ll get another one of these, a bug just flew into it”. Let them decide whether it’s free
9 Likes
5 Likes
Am I the only one who just takes the bug out and finishes the drink?
5 Likes
I gotta admit, I always thought the velocity of the plane relative to the air was part of the generation of lift, not just the jet or propeller
Like I thought if some force propelled the plane fast enough that didn’t involve sucking wind, it would lift off, because of the air/wing interaction
Depends on the bug but I just take out those little annoying fruit flies otherwise I can throw away most of my drinks when sitting on the balcony in summer. Or I don’t notice in time and have a tiny bit of extra protein.
If I understand what you’re saying, it sounds like you thought right.
Lots of smart people on here. I’m still convinced if I jumped high enough from a a fast moving vehicle I could land softly with no momentum.
1 Like
Best way to find out is experimentation.
If you ran off the back you could cancel out your initial momentum in the horizontal direction. If you had wings you could reduce your vertical momentum to zero as you land (or do it off a really low profile vehicle, maybe a skateboard).
1 Like
The part of the question that says the speed of the treadmill matches the speed of the wheels is ill posed because eventually that would require infinite speed.
If you said something like the speed of the treadmill is 60mph (or whatever normal takeoff velocity is) then the answer is a lot clearer.
1 Like
Nope. I’d do the same if the bug was small enough.
Guess that’s the difference between American and European expectations of restaurant service.
It would be embarrassing not to remove a tiny bug yourself from a drink.
Apologies in advance but I’m still confused. Not an unusual state. What is wrong with my thinking here (other than an overly complicated construction)?
I get that the plane gains forward motion due to pulling itself through the air rather than contact with the ground. The problem I have is that the hypothetical doesn’t call for the conveyor belt to match the forward motion but rather the speed of the wheels.
In Adam’s description of the Mythbusters test he says the plane needed forward movement of 25mph to take off. He also seemed to say that the runway was moving backwards at a constant 25mph speed. Yet surely if the runway is moving 25mph backwards and the plane 25mph forwards then the wheels themselves are rotating at 50mph at the moment of takeoff.
In which case this constitutes a violation of the ruleset. In order to continue to fulfil the ruleset the conveyor belt must always accelerate to match the speed of the rotation of the wheels. In which case my mind intuits a race to infinity as the plane remains stationary.
The only way we are going to be able to settle this is to try it imo.
The speed of the wheels has nothing to do with the forward motion of the plane - the wheels can be spinning infinity RPM and it won’t matter to the plane (forward motion-wise at least).
1 Like
Yeah. The people who say the plane will take off are thinking that the backwards velocity of the treadmill will match the forward velocity of the plane. But the problem actually says will match the speed of the wheels, right? So the treadmill will instantaneously match the velocity of the wheels and the plane won’t go anywhere. Which I don’t think is actually physically possible. It would be possible if the plane was driven by the wheels but it isn’t. The plane has to move for the wheels to spin but it can’t move because the treadmill will instantaneously match the wheels speed.
1 Like
But if the treadmill is going backwards at infinity also then the plane won’t move.