Jump to content

Talk:John Stapp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Acceleration/deceleration

[edit]

Can someone reread the article and check whether acceleration is confused with deceleration anywhere? 203.218.86.162 02:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking references

[edit]

In my opinion the article is lacking references, for example: "inveterate collector of euphemisms and adages", "popular with the press and his staff", "stood in the room that day only a short distance away", and contains some POV like "There is no question" in the introduction. Nerdi 08:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V2 rockets?

[edit]

This article says V1 rockets:

http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i5/murphy/murphy1.html

There's also some good pics and extra info. -- Rei 17:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Barbecue

[edit]

Stapp's research into vehicle occupant safety has arguably been more important in the long run than his earlier work. However, the impact of this research on vehicle design — and its eventual forced cancellation, rumoured to have been caused by coercion from car manufacturers — is somewhat difficult to find information on. The German Wikipedia has some relevant information; would anyone be willing to translate it? --pmj 11:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plagarized content

[edit]

Having read this article today, I must protest that large swaths of it appear to simply have been created by pulling paragraphs from articles I have written about John Paul Stapp. Some of these articles are referenced in the footnotes but that's hardly an excuse. I only state it here because some of the exact verbiage I used (and spent time developing) in my articles appears in this Wikipedia page -- word for word. Sincerely, Nick T Spark


We take copyright violations very seriously. Please edit the article and remove all sentences which were taken from your work. Or list them here and someone will do it for you. Note that phrases are probably not protected by copyright, but anything from full sentences upward are.
From your biography, it appears that Why Everything You Know About Murphy’s Law is Wrong is an online version of your work. Can you confirm? —EncMstr (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you in doubt? This is an archive of vol.9 issue 5 of the Improbable Research magazine, i.e., not a someone's random post. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment to me that I ought to edit out the offending sentences from the page. However I don't think that the burden for this should be put on me -- for one thing it's a lot of work and for another, it appears to obligate me to contribute to the page as a result of being plagiarized. That doesn't seem like the kind of precedent or policy Wikipedia should be embracing, does it? Nick T. Spark P.S. Yes I did write the article about Murphy's Law that you cite, as well as two lengthy articles about Dr. Stapp one of which appeared in the "Journal of the American Aviation Historical Society" and the other in "Wings/Airpower" magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.222.77 (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, suppose you go to court to file a claim of being plagiarized. You have to submit a reasonable proof, right? It means, like it or not, a plagiarized makes you work. If you think it's a lot of work, as a minimum, you may indicate the range of the text where you see plagiarized pieces, and we can start from there. (It is not that I don't believe you, but it could help me a lot: you know your text better than me.) Staszek Lem (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't see why removing pieces plagiarized text is "a lot of work", but if you are worried about precedents, don't be: there are hundreds of thousands of "volunteer vandals" which create all kinds of nuisance possible. Please keep in mind that wikipedians are unpaid volunteers here. So speaking about precedents, why would I, Staszek Lem, bother with your problems as a result of you being plagiarized? Of course, unlike you, we will handle the issue, but by your stance you chipped off a bit of my respect to you. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stapp achieved 639 mph, not 632

[edit]

The new book "Sonic Wind: the Story of John Paul Stapp and How a Renegade Doctor Became the Fastest Man on Earth" claims in its one Appendix (pg. 377) that Stapp's original estimate of his speed was 632 mph, which is often quoted since it was the number originally released to the press, but that "actual project measurements were later shown to have clocked the sled at 937 feet per second," which works out to 638.863466 mph. (That book, by the way, is an enormous source of Stapp information--by far the most complete biography yet published.)173.62.11.254 (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

eye injury

[edit]

It is claimed that a human can withstand 46.2G. That was only partly proven in Stapp's last run. For he suffered serious eye injuries ("eyes out") at 46.2G, so it cannot be said that a human can withstand 46.2G without injury.Royalcourtier (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One point four seconds to stop doesn't agree with forty-something g

[edit]

I have seen in the one of the referenced articles, and in Halliday and Resnick's Fundamentals of Physics 3E that the sled stopped in 1.4s This would be 286 m/s / 1.4 s or 204 m/s2 or a mere 20.8 g. Does anyone know what the recorded stop-time was for this '46g' event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.107.196 (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


It seems that if you use the 632 mph instead of 286 m/s you get ~46 g (which would be wrong...). Can someone point out where the 46 g comes from if it's not this?

632mph / 1.4s = 451.4; 451.4 (mph/s) / 9.8 m/s^2 = 46.1 g (miles*seconds / (hours*meters)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:C100:E871:8463:D350:6251:EEE5 (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the average acceleration during the stop was only about 21 G but the force was probably not constant in time during the 1.4 seconds. The 40+ G number is probably the peak recorded by accelerometers over some shorter timescale.Sbreheny (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Webster Third New International Dictionary defines the following unit named after him

stapp: [named after ...] a unit of force caused by acceleration and equal to one G acting on a body for one second.

is someone able to recover the correct definition? I feel 46 g ... pietro151.29.43.111 (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Ah, the above questions are answered in the article g-force.[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on John Stapp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Stapp&oldid=1210540766"