<p>River,</p>
<p>You are digging yourself much deeper in this whole, and have done nothing to prove yourself capable of doing any analysis of engineering physics. </p>
<p>I’m not going to waste my time arguing all of your absurd and WRONG statements, but I will make a few painfully obvious statements that will show that you don’t even have a grasp of the basics… </p>
<p>“since mu cannot be higher than 1.”</p>
<p>What?! There is no physical or mathematical limit on mu, the coefficient of friction. There are many material on material combinations that have coefficients well above 1. </p>
<p>“as the speed increases and air friction is encountered, it is found that the friction not only depends on the speed, but upon the square and sometimes higher powers of the speed.”</p>
<p>This assumption is based on taking into account wind resistance (drag on the airframe) and has nothing to do with internal friction forces of the wheels or the bearings. The friction of the treadmill on the wheels and the wheel bearings on the aircraft will still remain relatively constant. </p>
<p>“we just say that frictional force is mu*N”</p>
<p>That is the frictional force acting as the force on the tire (between the tire and treadmill), and not the force acting on the airframe and opposing the forward motion of the airplane. </p>
<p>“Friction between the air at the surface of the converor belt and the belt will cause the air to move with respect to the ground next to the belt. At some point the magic belt will be moving fast enough to generate enough airflow over the wings that the aircraft will lift off the belt”</p>
<p>Why don’t you do a bit of research on boundary layer theory and realize how wrong and absurd your statement is. </p>
<p>That’s all I have time and motivation to address right now, but your statement of relative motion to the treadmill is still wrong and absolutely nonsense. You have no one here who supports your argument, even as simply an academic exercise (which it obviously is not because it’s so clearly wrong). </p>
<p>I’m happy that you are so entertained and amused at absurd and wrong situations that have no basis in math or physics, real or even imagined.</p>