Talk:ThrustSSC: Difference between revisions

Why have the pictures been removed? G-Man 19:04, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I put the pics on there originally and somehow I'm also responsible for losing them! It seems to have happened when I bolded the Record statement at the bottom of the article, I can't imagine how!!

So I've reverted them back again.
Thanks for noticing.
Adrian Pingstone 21:45, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Was this vehicle called the Thrust 2 in the press? I remember when the record got broken and set at over 700mph, but it was by the "Thrust 2", I have never heard of the ThrustSCC. Borb 19:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Thrust2 was Richard Noble's car before ThrustSSC. I think it got the land speed record in 1983, but didn't go supersonic. -- Solipsist 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But I distinctly remember it being called the Thrust 2 when it broke the record and it was definately not the record that was broken in 1983. - Borb 20:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Thrust 2 is from 1983, so maybe the news you heard (newspaper or tv or whatever) got mixed up. It was and is the SSC.

Borb is correct. At the time a number of journalists got confused and referred to ThrustSSC as Thrust2. Jeremy Davey

Any idea why this is? Lisiate 03:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The parts of the run which count are fixed beforehand rather than being the fastest parts. The fastest kilometre of the run cannot be slower than the fastest mile, but this was not 'the' kilometre. It is an odd way of measuring the record but historically consistant. PeterGrecian 09:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the fastest kilometre can be slower than the fastest mile under at least one fairly pathological situation! For example if the speed dips in the middle of the fastest mile, it can be that the two peaks in speed are too far apart to be in the fastest kilometre. Then the fastest kilometre will only have one peak of speed, and if the peaks are short enough, then the average kilometre will be slower than the fastest mile (because a kilometre is more than half a mile, but only has one peak of speed)!WolfKeeper 21:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! Impeccable logic. I think though, the reason for the discrepancy was the one I gave. There is a graph of speed against distance for the record run on p330 of "Thrust" (paperback ed.) which shows the "high speed cruise" which was unique to the teams approach. I'll put this in the article at some stage. PeterGrecian 09:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a twist to this one, as WLSR afficionados may already be aware. When Richard Noble broke the record in 1983 with Thrust2, he only broke the kilometer record by the required 1%. He exceeded the mile record of Blue Flame, but not quite by the required margin. As Blue Flame was a 3-wheeler and therefore in a different category, Richard's mile record still took precedence. I'm not sure what the situation would have been if the two cars had been in the same category!

Another point of interest is that the measured mile and measured kilometer are not normally co-centred for these record attempts. Only three timing 'traps' are used: one to start (stop in the opposite direction) both times, one to stop (start) the km, then one to stop (start) the mile. Three times are therefore quoted: the mile, the km, and 'between the traps' (meaning 'between the stop (start) traps'.Jeremy Davey

I have received the following somewhat unfriendly message in my e-mail, from <address removed - it is a private email address and should not have been published without permission> -

I see you've uploaded an image of mine to Wikipedia and marked it as free for use by all. This came to my attention when I found people using it for commercial purposes without my permission. I retain the copyright to all my images and would never make them available for free general use. ALL uses of my images require prior permission first, even if that permission is given for free.

Please advise by return why you thought you could breach my copyright in this manner, and what you intend to do to rectify that breach.

Jeremy Davey
ThrustSSC Webmaster and SatComms

I have removed the picture I assume he's talking about (it would have been useful if he had given me the filename) and am writing back to him to explain. How odd that a pic of a major British achievement has to be removed! I do not intend to ask him for some kind of permission because I understand nothing of copyright and do not intend to get involved in such matters. In any case, for some years now I have only put onto WP pics off my own camera, so that problems of this sort cannot arise for me now. I leave it to others to fully delete the pic off WP. - Adrian Pingstone 08:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is fairly simple really. Whoever took the photo *automatically* owns it. They can sell or license the rights to it, if they want, but they don't have to it, because it's theirs. Copyright runs out something like 50 years after the person dies.WolfKeeper 08:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I really meant that I don't understand the choice of copyright messages available, rather than not understanding the principle of copyright. In any case, as I say above, the matter is academic because I put on only my own pics now. Nevertheless, thanks for writing - Adrian Pingstone 09:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes get made from time to time. It is possible that the copyright statements on the original source site was originally different, although the 'Not for free distribution' note on the image description page suggests that a licensing problem was already evident. However, Jeremy Davey's, email seems quite straightforward and we need to respect that. I've flagged the image as a Copyvio for deletion on Commons and removed the links from the pages where it was being used on other language Wikis. -- Solipsist 10:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be worth getting in touch with them via their website. Firstly it strikes me as surprising that the email comes from a hotmail account, and also the language is rather abrupt. I see on the official website it reads: "The text and images on this Web Site are the copyright property of SSC Programme Ltd, except where otherwise stated (a number of copyright holders incl. Jeremy Davey tho some of his pics are copyrighted SSC Programme Ltd). Text and images from this site may be used free-of-charge for reporting purposes only. For any other use, please contact us at thrust.news AT battlement.digital.co.uk". So I guess the question is - is a wikipedia article "reporting", or doing something else? - Hakluyt bean 13:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting you remark on the Hotmail account because I expressed surprise about the Hotmail address when I wrote my reply to him - Adrian Pingstone 20:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, look at it like this. You find that people are using your photo for profit and, when you ask why they are doing so without permission, they tell you that user Arpingstone on Wikipedia made it available free for ANY use. How would you feel? In the circumstances I think my email was quite reasonable, and I would add that no apology has been received for his actions.

You then find that he's quoting your PRIVATE email address (that you guard carefully for fear of the spammers ever getting hold of it) in a public forum. How do you then feel?

If you did make a note of my email address, I'd be most grateful if you could delete it. It is for personal and private use only. If anyone does want to contact me for permission to use any of my images, there are other ways of doing that.

Thanks, Jeremy

I intended the following phrase in my email to be an apology - "sometimes I will make a mistake in unintentionally adding a copyright picture". I regarded "mistake" and "unintentional" as being my apology. You say that you expected more but the unfriendly tone of your message left me not inclined to issue a stronger apology.

I did quote your e-mail address (what other ways would there be of contacting you if other Wikipedians wanted to talk Copyright with you?) but did you notice that I expressed the dots and the @ as words so that spam harvesters could not gather it. However, I should not have quoted it so I strongly apologise for that mistake.

I uploaded the picture to Wikipedia on the June 3rd 2003, over three years ago, at which time I had no understanding of what was and was not acceptable to upload. I would not make such a mistake now because I play very safe and only upload pictures off own camera. The upload was made with the best of intentions - Adrian Pingstone 13:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to Wikipedia with a particular interest in ThrustSCC I would like to apologise for any mistakes and errors concerning the images. It is particularly unfortunate since I think that we who edit here are pretty keen on ThrustSCC and its achievements, and have a high opinion of its team members. I am not expert in the copyright issues but feel that we should get the text of the article to a high standard before carefully seeking images. PeterGrecian 13:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, chaps, let's draw a line under this now. I think we all understand that Adrian made an honest mistake, and I think we all understand my need to protect my copyright.

Peter's point is the important one - getting a high-quality article on ThrustSSC into this globally-significant resource. If you would like my help with that, please just say so. And if you have a means of putting images into it with the necessary credits and copyright statements, I'd be happy to provide plenty.

Regards, Jeremy

Thanks, Jeremy, for your understanding that I made a mistake. Line duly drawn - Adrian Pingstone 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned she used 2 Speys, but I see no mention of total thrust. So what was it? Garfield 11:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 219.89.251.208 (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)CHEESE!!!219.89.251.208 (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Speed of sound is 770mph,
So they did not break the sound barrier!

But the speed of sound is variable, depending on prevailing conditions (check the maths in the article),

and the sound barrier is not quite the same thing -- check the articles and you'll see...

EdJogg (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention ThrustSSC went past the 1,000 mph mark.......so yeah they did.

Here is an exerpt from the end of the "Sound Barrier" article.

Breaking the sound barrier on land The sound barrier was first broken in a vehicle in a sustained way on land in 1948 by a rocket-powered test vehicle at Muroc Air Force Base (now Edwards AFB) in California, United States. It was powered by 6,000 lbs (27 kN) of thrust, reaching 1,019 mph (1,640 km/h).[12]

Not to say that ThrustSSC isnt the fastest vehicle to date nor am i saying that this isnt the first private vehicle to break the sound barrier. But this isnt the first overall.