Jump to content

Talk:Water rocket/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Suggestion for archiving

I suggest that this talk page be archived. It's a right mess, and we could all do with a fresh start... HenningNT (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC) ruff ruff man

Results of copyediting

I kind of hacked away at this one, but I hopefully preserved all relevant content -- basically, the article was very conversational in its tone of voice, using phrases such as "I'm not sure on the physics of it but I think it works like the conical jets on the SR-71 Blackbird", which I removed entirely. I'm not familiar with the subject material, so I may have left out something important, but if anyone restores something, please take care to ensure that the end result is written in an encyclopedic tone of voice (ie. simply restoring the bits I removed isn't going to do the trick). I also removed some of the more specific instructions simply because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information and is specifically not a place for tutorials, manuals and whatnot. -- Captain Disdain 15:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There are also rockets at which the water is heated.


Wikipedia is not an instruction manual!

I did pretty much exactly what I did before. All this "you can add fins to..." business is not acceptable. I quote official Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:
[...]
8. Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.

I don't mean to be a spoilsport here, but this is pretty much non-negotiable. This article's purpose is not to explain how water rockets are built or to showcase specific feats, or to act as a gathering point for enthusiasts, but to provide information about water rocketry. (Obviously, that doesn't mean that certain instructions cannot be provided, but such information's purpose is not to teach people how to build water rockets, it is to tell people how water rockets work. That's not the same thing, even if it is similar.) It's obvious that a lot of very enthusiastic water rocket builders are busy on this article, and that's great (it's a very interesting and informative article!), but please bear in mind Wikipedia's purpose. -- Captain Disdain 20:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up article some

Still needs work though. --Lincoln F. Stern 16:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try to keep wikipedia impartial

Radiotrib 09:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Radiotrib - 4 March, 2007)

I have added a couple of legitimate objections to parts of the content on this page. The current content regarding competitions and world records, demonstrates a one-sided view, biased toward a two of organizations (USWR and WRA2). Whilst this could be acceptable if they were the only ones prepared to maintain the page, their self reporting of records and failure to substantiate their records should be noted.

These comments have been added in the past, but have been removed by subsequent editors. In addition, valid links to the web sites or discussion groups of other legitimate water rocket organisations have been deleted. This is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and must stop.

I recommend that if my objections are to be deleted, then they should be incorporated into the text by the original contributor of the text. If they are not, then I will take it upon myself to manage the page clean-up myself.

I don't care what acrimony and arguments have taken place in the past between various groups in the hobby of water rockets. However, I DO care about the integrity of Wikipedia. This is a hugely valuable resource which is so easily abused, and when I see the signs of abuse right here in my own back yard I need to see the records put straight.

Will Someone Define Vandalism ?

Radiotrib 09:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Radiotrib

It is worth noting that this page was originally contributed by, is maintained by, and is ruthlessly censored by US Water Rockets. Legitimate insertions which are contrary to their opinions have been deleted. Links to legitimate, open, public Water Rocket web sites and Forums have been deleted, and this has been done on more than one occasion.

These legitimate insertions have been described recently as "Vandalism by a disgruntled competitor" (by US Water Rockets). I am neither vandal nor competitor. I do, however, object to Wikipedia being used for self-promotion amd to disseminate unsubstantiated, or false information in an attempt to raise the profile of a particular interest group.

In Wikipedia terms, the deletion of legitimate and well-worded contributions, without prior consultation, is more likely to be considered vandalism than is the addition of valid information which may not be in accord with the views of some.

I claim my right to contribute to any Wikipedia article I wish without interference from a group acting in their own interests. The article has now been amended to incorporate the information in the correct manner, rather than adding it as objections.

Addendum to the above

This article has, again, been censored, and links removed. This editing was done by the same group of people, who seem to feel they have the right to dictate terms and curtail attempts to introduce factual accuracy. I expect this editing to be justified on this discussion page, by US.Water Rockets/WRA2 before any future censorship.

If someone feels that they have a grievance regarding the amended content, please discuss them on this talk page before undertaking any further arbitrary deletions. I recommend that people readWikipedia:Resolving_disputes , for guidance regarding how to conduct a dispute and to gain an insight into about what I have just asked, and why. I feel I should also refer certain editors to pages Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial and particularly Wikipedia:Information_suppression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiotrib (talk • contribs) 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Defined

It is ironic that you feel that all entries made by yourself are factual and that you may edit and delete at will in this article to suit your own agenda, but anyone reverts your damage is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Most of what you have done is quit hypocritical in nature.

The editing being done by WRA2 is simply to remove misleading and intentionally negative qualifying statements repeatedly being added by a known member of a recently formed self-proclaimed rival organization which feels that multiple organizations cannot coexist in the small sport for reasons only known to them.

I have no personal or group affiliated agenda.

The following points are the reason the members of the WRA2 think you do have a bias and a group affiliated agenda:

  • You have participated in arguments numerous times in the past on several Water Rocket Forums, where you repeatedly argued the exact same negative opinions you have repeatedly attempted to insert into the Wikipedia articles as facts.
  • You belong to a recently formed organization called IWRA which has a stated goal of being the only governing body for water rockets.
  • This IWRA is comprised and run by a small number of individuals who participated in the same forum arguments against WRA2 with you.
  • The edits made to the article appear to be done so with the specific goal of discrediting the existing WRA2 organization and its members.
  • Other members of the IWRA have made similar edits to the article in the past.
  • The timing of your Wikipedia edits coincides with external arguments and conflicts outside the Wikipedia.
  • You have commented in the past that you personally plan to make a world record attempt with your own design.
  • Your design would be considered non-compliant under the WRA2 rules.
  • Your opinion of what constitutes proof to validate a record differs from that of the WRA2.
  • The WRA2 and it’s members have never questioned, modified, or added commentary to information posted about the IWRA or it’s members on the Wikipedia, even after having suffered repeated attempts by yourself and IWRA members to distort the WRA2 information.
    • Each of the items can be checked and verified, so please be honest if you contend any of the above. -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    Perhaps you should simply just admit that you have been collaborating in these edits with others and have a collective agenda. It would save the editors from having to sift through reams of records which ultimately show your connection. 4.156.114.228 13:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Water Rockets

    I have maintained for some two years that, whilst I appreciate the efforts of any group in helping to provide a framework for the sport, I will not support spurious claims by non-representative groups claiming to be "officially sanctioned" or "governing body" - RT

    As stated previously, who are you to decide who can and cannot form a governing body for a competition which they create?

    Simply put, the WRA2 has been holding the only organized World Record Water Rocket Competition for 4 years, and this is an undisputable fact. Members of the WRA2 competition are located around the world, and range from teenagers to aeronautics universities. We claim the right to be known as the first and only officially sanctioned world record competition in the world, as this is a fact. None other exists or ever has.

    Our position is that the WRA2 has every right to hold a competition and every right to govern our own competition. You have no right to deny them these rights. You have no right to add your political commentary to the factual entries in the Wikipedia regarding the WRA2 competition or it’s standings. You have not backed up your accusations with any proof to the contrary, so you cannot call the information “spurious”.

    In light of the fact you have had numerous heated conflicts in the past with WRA2 members that call into question the motivation for your edits, your constant calling the facts into question seems more like retaliation than anything else.
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    U.S. Water Rockets will attest to the conflicts and can provide countless examples of this. There are other forum members who will do the same if this fact comes into question. 4.156.114.228 13:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Water Rockets


    Please explain the negative nature of the comments. Offering a more balanced point of view is not inserting negativity. Edits made were intentionally to provide a truer picture of the current situation. Your repeated deletion of these edits is suppression of information in what appears to be your own self-interest. Your stated opinion of this other group (presumably the IWRA) belies your own attitude. I do not represent any other group, nor am I acting on anyone else's behalf - RT

    Reverting damage caused by vandals is probably acting out of “self-interest” if you wish to split hairs. I think perhaps a better term for our edits would be acting out of “self-defense”. Your very own edits qualify as suppression of information for your own self interest as well. If you merely wished to present an alternative contest or rules body, then that would be considered “balanced”. Deleting and editing the sections dealing with other associations to give the impression that they are not credible is another thing completely. What justification do you have for deleting and editing the descriptions of the rules of the existing WRA2 contest?
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    We at U.S. Water Rockets believe that the officers in the IWRA were chosen with a “rigged” election. Would it be “balanced” if our members were constantly adding that view to the IWRA description you post to the wikipedia? Would you think it was an edit that made you look bad? Would that belong on the wikipedia article? We’ve never interfered with Wikipedia information describing your association, why do you repeatedly edit ours? 4.156.114.228 13:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Water Rockets

    Specific comments which can be cited are the repeated attempts to insert "claimed" and "reported" in front of any citations made by U.S. Water Rockets or WRA2, yet all other citations are left as factual, when this community knows that only the claims of U.S. Water Rockets are supported by BOTH electronic datalogging and videotaped evidence. No other claimant has produced as detailed evidence to back up their accomplishments, yet you ONLY insert qualifying remarks in front of the claims made by one particular group. Why is that? You did a poor job of hiding your little agenda.

    As far as I am aware, none of the other records are invalid. Each of them has provided sufficient technical detail to make them both verifiable by simulation and repeatable.

    Who are you to judge what qualifies an accomplishment in the WRA2 as valid? If the WRA2 posts a new official WRA2 record, it must meet the WRA2 qualifications, not whichever qualifications you subscribe to. You cannot edit or modify the WRA2 standings we list on the Wikipedia simply because you disagree with the WRA2 rules or the decisions of our judges.

    You seem to believe that proof is in providing technical specifications which you can simulate and verify yourself. The opposing view of the WRA2 is that this is not proof of an achievement because there is no way to know that the technical details provided are truthful and accurate. Nothing in your proposed system prevents a person from using a simulation program to build a “virtual design” then submitting the simulation parameters as their record design?

    What proof do you have that the other record claims in the Wikipedia article were not created purely in simulators?
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    USWR/WRA2 records are unverified by independent observers, and they have provided insufficient information on their designs to allow others to verify the validity of their claims.

    I do not believe any of the previous records provide any verification by independent observers at all. None of them comply with this. This fails to meet your criteria, yet you include them and accept them as valid and edit only the U.S. Water Rockets’ WRA2 Compliant entries to cast doubt on them because you say they don’t meet this same criteria. I believe this is ample proof that your edits are biased and targeted at the WRA2 specifically.
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    How do you know who has or has not observed our records? Our flights have been witnessed by many people, as we fly in a public area. You can even see them in the launch videos we provide to document our flights. We simply choose not to post their personal information in public, having seen the way the IWRA attacks and ridicules anyone who supports us. 4.156.114.228 13:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Water Rockets

    By back-engineering the few figures I have been able to find, I was once able to calculate a working hypothesis for the pressure range you might have used, and so I am able to support the fact that, theoretically, USWR could have achieved their stated altitude. However, whilst this may be sufficient to convince me of the possibility of their claims, this is still not verifiable evidence of fact. However, you have a point, and Iwill take time soon to review the validity of the claims of the other ex. record holders/claimants. - RT

    The WRA2 has not disputed the veracity of the prior claims and has accepted them as valid claims because before the formation of the WRA2 there was no rules and great controversy surrounding the past records. Everyone had their own opinion of which records were valid and there were no rules. The fighting was so severe that many of the competitors actually gave up water rockets or were “ran out of town”.

    Many of the same names involved in these past conflicts show up as IWRA members, coincidentally. The WRA2 was formed to stop the anarchy and bring unity to the competition, and stop all the politics and fighting. We decided to simply include all previously claimed records as valid and start with a clean slate approach. Our acceptance of all the previous records was even noted in the article and you and edited this out as well. What balance were you trying to convey by removing the note explaining this fact in the article?
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    Some of the edits which you seem to blame on the WRA2 and U.S. Water Rockets have, in fact, been made by editors because they violate the policy of Wikipedia (no Forum links for example). Yet, you fail to abide by the rules and re-post the same deleted links and then blame the wrong people for the edit.

    This is true - I saw that yesterday as I walked the history. I would have removed them immediately, along with all the commercial or vanity sites, but I suspect that my removal of certain personal, vanity sites would probably have caused more trouble that it was worth, so I think it is advisable to defer to Anome's reinstatement of the contents until after the dust settles. - RT

    What kind of apology is that? You were wrong about who edited out your changes and even discovered your mistake, and you still returned and made even more confrontational edits, and never even apologized. 4.156.114.228 13:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Wtaer Rockets

    Perhaps you should have checked this matter before you launched off into your verbal assault of innocent parties? The fact you chose to attack without checking facts first is more evidence you have an axe to grind.
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    The WRA2, of which U.S. Water Rockets is a founding member, has no issue with other governing bodies and has asked on numerous occasions to be left in peace, yet we find our forums constantly harassed and SPAMmed by your associates, and the same individuals making self-serving edits to defame and discredit the WRA2 "rival" group.

    I would beg to differ on the first point, having already experinced several incidents between USWR/WRA2 members and members of a public forum on Yahh called Water Rockets, and on the issue of spamming I would not have any idea what other people do. However, these points are both irrelevant to the Wikipedia. I am not involved in either issue, and wish to remain so - RT

    Beg to differ in what way? The Yahoo and MSN Water Rocket Groups contain multiple requests to be left alone from WRA2 members. This is easy to prove. As for SPAM, I merely point this activity out as evidence of IWRA mischief directed at WRA2 members and evidence of proof of an IWRA group effort to attack the WRA2 and our members. These points are relevant to the Wikipedia, as they demonstrate that motivation exists for editing with bias and malicious intent on your part to promote and assist a competing organization and/or take revenge for external conflicts with other contributors to this article.
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    We have ample proof of SPAM in our forum from your fellow IWRA members and it implicates the group as a whole is involved. The recent attacks on our forum coincide with this Wikipedia vandalism, and we don't believe this is a coincidence. We can take this discussion offline with the Wikipedia editors if necessary. 4.156.114.228 13:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Water Rockets

    In closing, it may be time for you to consult the reference Wikipedia:Personal_attacks before making further slanderous edits to these pages which contain information about your rivals.

    I have read that article as well as many others. I also manage a series of Wikis for the scientific community at the European Space Agency so I do understand conflicting opinions and neutrality. For the record, I have no rivals since I do not compete with others, only myself.

    Your claimed expertise and intimate knowledge of wikis and neutrality should have been put to use before you made controversial edits and deletions to the contributions of others, especially those contributors who you have a history of conflict with in outside forums. If you were an expert, it would be your responsibility to resolve the issues through proper channels, not engaging in an edit war.

    Why also have you pretended to be an unbiased observer making innocent corrections to the article and were shocked and confused to discover that the changes you made were being corrected by another contributor? Why have you made this elaborate charade?
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    I am asking for collaboration not confrontation, The history of interaction between USWR/WRA2 and other groups or individual forum members, has been unfortunately, confrontational in any situation I can remember where the authority of their actions and claims have been brought into question. As for "slanderous" - None of my edits could be considered slanderous. Might I remind you that this is a legal term, and as such should be used carefully, especially when used in a public context. If proven to be untrue, this could be considered a defamatory statement and be subject to legal action. Not that I am interested in such things. I would just coucel you against using such terms without careful thought.- RT

    Your edits have not been collaborative, they have been confrontational. You were aware of who you were confronting and how you would suit your agenda best through your editing. It is pretty clear to us that you have over and over tried to erase all references to the WRA2 rules and failing that you have tried to discredit them. Your membership in a new competitor organization makes your edits biased, yet you hide behind a claim of being an innocent person acting with no alterior motives. 4.156.114.228 13:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Water Rockets

    4.156.114.206 03:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Water Rockets

    Radiotrib 08:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC) (responses have been threaded to improve readability - replies are intalicised)

    Aerial photography subsection removed

    I've just removed a subsection on model-rocket-based aerial photography from the article on the grounds that this topic is not specific to water rockets, and should be covered in the model rocket article rather than here. This also removed a picture, but since there's another good apogee photo lower down the article that serves the same purpose, I don't think the article loses anything from its removal. -- The Anome 08:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

    Followup: I've now merged some of this material into the model rocket article. -- The Anome 08:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

    Unsubstantiated use of quasi-official terms

    Radiotrib 14:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC) - (Kevin Salt - Technical Webmaster - European Space Agency - Research Science Division)

    I would recommend that, until such time any author can provide substantiation of their claims, expressions such as "official", "officially-sanctioned", "governing body" and/or any other terms which might be interpreted as an attempt to claim authority, or to influence the opinions of less well-informed readers, should be routinely deleted from this page.

    There is no officially sanctioned governing body for the sport or hobby of Water Rocket building or flying, and from experience, it it unlikely that there ever will be one blanket authority. At present there are at least two, and neither holds the right or represents sufficient of the majority to be able to claim to govern the sport.

    Please read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial for further advice.

    Substantiaion of Terms

    There are no laws which prohibit groups of individuals of any size from forming an association and sanctioning an event in the name of their choice. Prior to the WRA2 formation, no other group held formal competitons for the world altitude record for Water Rockets. The WRA2 formed to organize events and promote safety and fair competitions. The competition has been ongoing since 2003, and due to the fact that it is the first and only competition of this type and has been for nearly 4 years, the simple and substantiated facts show that the dozen or so teams belonging to the WRA2 are indeed the "governing body" of their own "officially sanctioned" event. Multiple teams participating in this competition from around the world can verify this simple fact.

    The consensus of the WRA2 teams is that the edits and complaints you continue to make are without merit and are being done completely out of malice because you belong to a recently founded organization which seeks to have a monopoly on all water rocket competitions. Your group was asked to join the WRA2 and work with the other teams, but declined the opportunity. Once again, the teams of the WRA2 ask to be left alone and not harassed by your association. We believe there is room in the world for everyone to enjoy this sport. Why must you defame the internet with "conspiracy theories" and qualifying remarks clearly intended to dissuade people from trusting the WRA2? The WRA2 considers these to be personal attacks on the group and will not hesitate to revert them.

    4.156.114.206 04:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Water Rockets

    Dates

    I think we need some dates added to the record section HenningNT --85.19.72.51 11:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

    Re. Dates, plus other things

    Thanks Henning - I just found, and added, a couple of details in the records section. I think the dates are all straight now.

    As soon as I get the chance I'll go looking for references to provide accreditation for some of the factual assertions about pressures, aerodynamics, construction materials etc. and then if necessary I'll modify the text for accuracy in line with the references

    Radiotrib 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (Kevin Salt - Technical Webmaster - European Space Agency - Research Science Division)

    Isn't this getting a bit out of hand ??

    Radiotrib 08:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC) - (Kevin Salt - Technical Webmaster - European Space Agency - Research Science Division) Lets clarify a few points :

    • I am not acting on behalf of any group or organisation, I am acting alone although I may discuss my actions with other, in public furums

    The evidence strongly suggests that you are acting as part of a group, with specific goals in mind.
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    you sound like someone who has been watching too many TV courtroom dramas - RT

    • My active history in the field of water rockets has been in the area of building and innovation, not record chasing.

    I recall you have made statements in the past which indicate that you have had intentions to fly a world record attempt. Do you deny that you have had record aspirations? -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    If Mr. Salt has no designs on the record, then does he deny making the following rant to the Yahoo forums on 03/25/2006.

    “So when I fly my record atetmpt, if I can get the true altitude verified by the Dutch Airforce using a Flycatcher radar, but it doesn't carry a payload, do you really think you are going to tell me that I cannot verify my altitude and hence do not qualify for a record ??? Hai Don' Fink So!”

    are you going to quote the rest of the thread as well or just selected snippets to suit your oown purposes?? - RT

    Once more you have been caught in a lie. You claim several times you are not a record competitor, yet you have made statements to the contrary in public forums. 4.156.114.228 13:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Water Rockets

    hardly "caught in a lie" ... it was a purely hypothetical statement, since I think the NLM would probably have a few more important jobs to do than tracking a toy rocket across the sky ... eh? .. don't you kiddies understand sarcasm? and anyway, as I said, I once did think about designing a record breaker, but that was then ... this is now ... - RT

    • I have been a member of the USWR forum, to which I contributed a few ideas before I reverted to the yahoo forum where I had been a member for years.

    What does this have to do with Wikipedia tampering?
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    You joined the Yahoo Forum in August of 2004 and the USWR forum on MSN in December of 2004. This is easy to verify. You had not been a member of Yahoo for “years”, as you claim. This is not even 6 months! Even though this information is not relevant to the Wikipedia edit war, it does show that you have a tendency to misrepresent the facts completely and distort them to suit your goals. 4.156.114.228 13:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Water Rocket

    YEARS - now that's what we call a plural noun - i.e. more than a year. Calculating back (sorry for the big numbers) 2004-2007=3 ... 3 YEARS ... plural of year - years ... and you omitted to metion that I left the USWR/WRA2 consortium forum on ??? ... or don't you keep those records. I'm sure you can find my last post since you spend so much time rifling through old data. I still recieve the weekly digests, but for some inexplicable reason I can't connect to the forrum any more. Since I was not guilty of abusing the forum in any way, this must be an indication of how you deal with people who disagree with your point of view -- we know a lot about those kinds of tactics on this side of the Atlantic. - RT

    whoops --- I put "had" rather than "have" - what a terrible mistake .. but what does this have to do with your propagating misleading statements about your organisation? - RT

    • I do not subscribe to secretive innovation. I have argued this case in the Yahoo water-rocket forum with representatives of USWR

    You do not speak for the world, so deleting references to an organization which has different views is wrong, and as a Wiki expert, you should have known this.-David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    NPOV - it's why I don't make an issue of it, I just mention it as another reason you attack me whenever i stand up to be counted - RT

    • I object to my edits being deleted as they were last year as well

    Edits which you cannot back up with facts can be corrected by other contributors, particularly if the edits you make are deliberately false and misleading or intended to promote your personal agenda and are not based in fact. I believe I have proven motivation and intent and the edits were deleted with justification. -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    editing (not deleting) unsubstantiated facts is exactly what I HAVE been doing, both then and now - thanks for your permission to continue - RT

    • I joined the IWRA because they were flexible, and open in their approach. Precisely the reasons why I did not join the WRA2.

    So, after all of the above comments you made denying any group affiliation and involvement with these edits, now you admit to being connected with the recently formed rival organization? Are you aware how contradictory this appears?
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    not at all - I don't know where you get the idea that i have tried to deny it. I have made no secret of being a member of the IWRA - but I also stated clearly that I am not acting in their interests or on their behalf. i like your expressions like "rival organisation" and "upstart". These again are indicative oof yoour heavy handed attitude towards fellow hobbyists with differing opinions. If you asked them, I'm sure that the IWRA would be happy to work together for the good of the hobby. - RT

    WE, (that's not you and not me, not USWR/WRA2, not IWRS - thats WE) can do something right here, to represent this sport/hobby accurately. To provide open information about how this game is played, and about the specifically water-rocket innovations which have made it such fun to do. All WE have to do, is collaborate. If my edits have ruffled some people's feathers, then can they not examine the reasons why, and look to themselves to meet in the middle ground. After USWR/WRA2 removed all my edits six months ago, I stood back and re-examined my position. After six months I realised I still has the same objections and for the same reasons, so I re-edited. Since that point, an edit/reinstate war has threatened to emerge. This is not right.

    My argument has never been against the record set by USWR, and if I ever manage to make it across the Atlantic, I hope, as a fellow rocketeer and innovator, I will be given the chance to witness one of their flights, at which point, if it breaks a record, or comes close enough to prove tat it could, I will shout it from the rooftops.

    For the USWR/WRA2 members specifically, if you would prefer to take this discussion off line, and conduct it in a more leisurely and informal manner, you are welcome to e-mail me and/or telephone. Obviously, I will not publish my e-mail address here, but if you would like to visit the RSSD web site at www.rssd.esa.int and hit "contact the webmaster" at the bottom of any page, you will be able to reach me directly. I will then respond with my personal contact details.

    I don't want a fight, I want fair representation for all.

    Debate shall continue here, in public, where the discussion can be viewed by anyone. I personally do not trust you to keep your word in any agreement you make in private offline discussions. I would prefer to have the wikipedia administrators oversee the discussions.
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    which is why I asked them to find the time to look in on the page in the first place - RT

    NPOV

    I'm glad you're all discussing this here. Please work out a solution between you on this talk page that follows the WP:NPOV policy before proceeding any further, rather than edit-warring within the article. I suggest that you make only externally verifiable assertions such as, for example, "the world's oldest" or "the world's largest" or "recognized by the International Olympic Committee", providing verifiable references from third-party sources that support those assertions, rather than use the term "official". If consensus cannot be reached about these things, you could use formulations such as "X organization describes itself as the world's biggest", and so on.

    If NPOV can be successfully applied to such extraordinarily contentious topics such as the Holocaust and Khmer Rouge, I'm sure it can be made to work here. -- The Anome 09:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

    Some additional information

    Radiotrib 10:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC) - (Kevin Salt - Technical Webmaster - European Space Agency - Research Science Division)

    Early in my involvement with the hobby of building and flying water rockets, I also attempted to recommend a set of rules governing competitive events in the sport. I tried to be fair, and reasonable, and offered a suggestion of several groups, each encompassing a particular range of rockets, and targeted, as a whole, on as large a range of interests and skills as possible. It was an attempt to introduce the Water Rocket equivalent of combat sport weight divisions. To ensure that single bottle 2l rockets designed for aerodynamics, did not get mixed in with multi-litre, multi-stage monsters, ansd to encourage progression by successive achievement.

    An interesting read, but is no justification for tampering with the articles on the Wikipedia. -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    When I thought I had a good combination, I offered them up for discussion, first on a public forum which had been in existence since 1997, and which represented single point access to possibly the largest group of independant Water Rocket experts, and subsequently during the early days of the USWR/WRA2 forum at MSN. My suggestions were considered by many, and on Yahoo,, two discussion threads developed. The first was on what rules should apply, how and why etc ... the second was on whether there was any need for record attempt rules at all. In the end, the whole thing just fizzled out.

    Also not a justification for tampering with the articles on the Wikipedia.
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    Correction: The MSN forum is a neutral public water rocketry forum under USWR control. The WRA2 forum is controlled by the WRA2, and is private and for WRA2 members only. Our MSN Group policy forbids association politics. We do not even allow the WRA2 to post association business there.

    Coincidentally, this recent Wikipedia attack on the WRA2 presence comes exactly one day following the banning of IWRA members from our MSN Group due to repeated political SPAM posts, against this very policy. This implies retaliation on part of the IWRA is the incentive for your innocent little edits to the article. 4.156.114.228 14:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Water Rockets

    Your unfounded accusations have gone on long enough - Name those members and I will represent your concerns to the IWRA committee otherwise retract your comment.

    Since then I have discussed these ideas with many people, some of whom are record holders in their own fields, and the consensus seems to be that in any field of endeavour, rules are very useful in organising level playing fields for competitions, but that in the world of constructed devices, world records are broken by innovation and dedication. Rules can, and do, stifle this innovation and hold back the possibility of breaking new ground.

    The position of the WRA2 is that full-disclosure of designs is far more stifling to innovation. Disclosing designs will only encourage “copycat” designs and deter new and innovative ideas. Full-disclosure also deters innovation because this requirement is a turn-off to designers who do not wish their competitors to benefit from their designs, so they simply won’t participate.

    The rules are what they are. Innovation exists within the rules. Without rules there is anarchy and disorder and increased opportunity for cheating, or building something far too dangerous and unsafe to be allowed. Teams competing in everything from the Indy Racing League to the X-Prize Cup all seem to innovate within the safety and validation guidelines set for the by their respective organizations, why should water rockets be any different?
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    U.S. Water Rockets has an official policy not to share information with the public, mainly due to the fact that our designs are extremely dangerous if not constructed and used correctly. Independent people as well as members of the IWRA have been observed publicly exchanging advice on how to cut corners and even make illegal modifications to safety equipment to improve the performance of their rockets. We do not wish to provide any designs which can so easily be rendered unsafe. We choose only to share information with teams we can trust. This is perfectly acceptable in the WRA2 rules.

    We believe that publishing our record designs would just create a contest where replicas of our designs would be created and launched and no new innovations would be made.

    Mr. Salt's dislike of the rules which the WRA2 teams have been using for 4 years is evident, but dislike of something is not a reason to delete it from the Wikipedia. 4.156.114.228 14:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Water Rockets

    I did not adhere to this hypothesis originally, but since the arrival of the WRA2 rules, and having followed the regularly acrimonious cycle of argument/defense/accusation which has ensued regarding the effectiveness or applicability of their rules, I am lately inclined to agree with the freedom approach.

    You’re “free” to do whatever you want, even make up your own “free for all” competition. Please stop trying to promote your own idea of a contest by eliminating the references to the existing contest.

    If you were writing a truly balanced article you would have simply added paragraphs describing your alternative competition to the article and everyone would be happy. Instead you chose to tamper with the existing article to morph it into an article about your own idea of a contest and eliminate the references to ours. -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    I would suggest that organised, public competitions must be governed by rules, and that the rules should be specifically formulated to confine competitors to classes based on perhaps volumes, construction methods, etc. BUT - I also contend that the unique nature of a World Record means that it should be left untouched by any restriction on design or construction so long as the device meets with a previously agreed and accepted definition of the term "Water Rocket".

    You should have started this before someone else already did it.-David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    Now you are angry that someone did something you dreamed of doing and want to tear them down. First, U.S. Water Rockets sets a record that you wanted to reach and you attack us. Now you want to form a governing body and discover someone else already has, so you attack them. There's a pattern to your actions here. This is also poor sportsmanship. 4.156.114.228 14:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Water Rockets


    It is also for this reason that I support the upward revision of the current World Record claimed by USWR which was added by HenningNT yesterday. If people do not accept WRA2's authority to apply rules to World Record attempts (which I do not) then the WRA2 two flight rule does not apply, and the single flight of 636 meters (2088 feet) on July 19th, 2006 should stand as the highest flight ever achieved by a conventional Water Rocket. The previous record claim of 1,909 feet (582 meters) on May 8, 2006 might be reported as the winning effort in the WRA2 Class A Annual Altitude Competition. I also think that the other listed records under "Previous Record Holders" need to be put into perspective by at least an acknowledgment under the current record section stating that this is the latest in a succession of record-breaking flights undertaken by USWR over the past 3 years.

    Your upward revision was done intentionally to alter the WRA2 standings into your idea of what the standings are. HenningNT also is a member of the IWRA, proving your claim of acting alone with no affiliation with any group is false. -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    Let us get something straight: U.S. Water Rockets does NOT recognize any other governing bodies or rules organizations and does not wish their record failures be used to promote competitions to which they do not belong, or as implied endorsements to the opinion that two flights are not required to substantiate a record claim. (A check of all other similar records and contests shows this requirement is quite commonplace, i.e. X-Prize, Land Speed Records, etc.) The report of the 2,088 foot flight was added by HenningNT IN PLACE OF THE WRA2 ENTRY to deliberately excise the references to the WRA2 record, which is further evidence that your edits are a group effort on behalf of the IWRA, to hide the WRA2 from the public, since HenningNT is also a IWRA member. 4.156.114.228 14:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Water Rockets

    - The reason I added the 2088 flight is because it is the current world record... I'm not sure what "excise" means, but I wasn't trying to mess up for you guys. HenningNT 21:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    I further offer the recommendation that the terms "claimed", and "unverified" should be obligatory in situations where a record flight cannot be substantiated. Such substantiation might be, for example, the presence of responsible impartial observers, sufficient technical data to allow others to verify by simulation the theoretical capabilities of the rocket supported by descriptive and photographic evidence to prove that the rocket was built and flown.

    The WRA2 members subscribe to a different set of criteria. If your opinions differ that is fine. Just don’t expect to alter articles by deleting the WRA2 requirements which you object you.

    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    How does anyone know that “Impartial Observers” are impartial? How can their veracity be tested? U.S. Water Rockets launches are witnessed by numerous people. We don’t post their identities because we respect their privacy. Given the lengths “independent” Water Rocket enthusiasts have gone through to try and make life miserable for our team, we really don’t think anyone would want to be used as a reference anymore. Are you aware that there exist, in large numbers, groups of people who insist that the Apollo Moon Landings are faked? There are others who insist that the Holocaust never happened. Shall we go through the entire Wikipedia and change all the articles to “unverified” and “unsubstantiated claims” because some individuals have a minority view of what qualifies them as substantiated? 4.156.114.228 14:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Water Rockets

    I am not, in the following sentence, inferring that there have been any hint of fraudulent practices by anyone in the sport I am attempting to explain WHY independent substantiation is necessary.

    With that in mind, regarding verification methods, it is worth mentioning that an on-board video is not acceptable as evidence of a specific flight. It only evidence of the fact that "A camera flew in A rocket on A date and time". Equally, jpeg images of flight log print-outs can bee edited to show a different flight curve just as easily as they can be edited to show a fancy background. To carry any authority, substantiation MUST be from an independent source.

    What is posted on the web by our members is entirely up to them. What they must submit is the raw data and details of their launches so that the WRA2 can validate the record. The WRA2 does not force their competitors to post any details of their designs in public but we do encourage participants to share video footage of their flights because they have been shown time and again to be the best way to attract new members to the sport. People simply love to watch the videos.
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    Obviously, the WRA2 knows more about detecting video and data tampering than the rest of us laymen, as they would not be using this verification method if it were not the most reliable method of all. Our collective ignorance of their specialized verification techniques is a positive in this situation because if they published specific details of their verification process, it would compromise the security of the process by pointing out the signatures used to detect fakes. This is common sense. 4.156.114.228 14:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC) U.S. Water Rockets

    I hope I have explained my concerns clearly. Thanks to Anome for adding his administrative expertise, and assisting with this process. If we can use this talk page for constructive dialog, we will all benefit.

    It is difficult to think we can have a constructive dialog with someone who lies about his motivation and affiliation and then contradicts his own statements on the same page he made them, but we can try to work to the goal of ending this edit war.

    In summary, I believe the edits made to the article by “Radiotrib” and “HenningNT” should be reverted, and leave it up to the administrators of the Wikipedia to take whatever corrective action is necessary.

    I believe the administrator involved has already taken that action.

    Please re-read the second section of User_talk:The_Water_Rocket_Achievement_World_Record_Association. I think you will find the statement is completely unambiguous.


    If members of the IWRA cannot deal with the existence of the WRA2, or cannot keep their members from vandalizing the Wikipedia article, then I propose the editors of the Wikipedia simply delete any and all association references from the article. It will be one less playground that has to be supervised.
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    Substantiation of terms

    QUOTE - The competition has been ongoing since 2003, and due to the fact that it is the first and only competition of this type and has been for nearly 4 years, the simple and substantiated facts show that the dozen or so teams belonging to the WRA2 are indeed the "governing body" of their own "officially sanctioned" event. Multiple teams participating in this competition from around the world can verify this simple fact.

    Finally someone has hit the nail right on the head, and I applaud the author for clarifying the situation publicly. As the contributor points out, the WRA2 are the "governing body" of their own "officially sanctioned" event and whatever that event calls itself, it does not make them, the officially sanctioned governing body for water rocket world records. This is what the article was attempting to infer before it was edited by myself. As substantiating reference to this ntent, I offer the version of The_Water_Rocket_Achievement_World_Record_Association dated 14:00 GMT on 7 March, 2007 or before, and their appearance in Sports Governing Bodies of the United States for verification.

    Now if someone other than me would be so kind as to make this distinction in the Water Rockets article, using clear and unambiguous wording, this will, at least, begin to offer a more balanced view.

    As far as I am concerned, altitude is altitude, and that's all that matters if one is targeting the world altitude record for a water rocket. Whether the record is broken during a particular, restricted-class, competition, and whether that competition is supported by or managed by a particular group, is by and large irrelevant. However, the information, as a fact, might well be eligible for entry in the context of expanding the where and when of the record attempt.

    Regardless of all this, substantiation is the most important aspect affecting the acceptance of any record claim (ask the guys at the Guinness Book of Records), and regrettably, most water rocket record claims are unsubstantiated.

    I am surprised that the likely current record holders, since they are able to consistently break their own records, cannot arrange a public demonstration of their technology, in order to shut down the dissenters once and for all. For myself, I have already said that as far as I am concerned, the record recorded in the article stands as a valid record claim and should be recorded as such.

    If I am not mistaken, the U.S. Water Rockets People hold their launches in a public area and are witnessed by the general public on every flight. The in-flight videos on their website clearly show spectators on the lake where they launch their rockets. I also have seen footage from their record flights on a television program called "Mythbusters", which is themed on debunking myths and urban legends. If they corroborate the records, then it seems like a credible independent authority has corroborated the flights. I believe this proves the flights are a matter of public record and your assertions that the flights are made in private are patently false.


    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    Repeatedly using the word "substantiated" does not make anything substantial. Referenced evidence works. Peer group review works. Quoted authority works. Ratification by independent observers works. Shouting loudest or longest doesn't. Neither does making another unsubstantiated statement like dozen or so teams belonging to the WRA2 when it would appear that, with the exception of USWR and Parental Advisory, none of the other competing teams appear to have a web presence. This has to be assumed, since the only site mentioning their names is the WRA2, and that carries no links to them, and they did not turn up on a cursory Google search for the team names.

    Once again, you misrepresent the facts. In addition to the two clubs you cite, the Cold Lake Rocket Club also has a website, which you have failed to mention.

    yep I searched on cold lake water rocket and found nothing - your hint came up with their web site - [1] - thanks - RT


    Additionally, we do not require participating teams to provide a website, so websites or lack thereof are not relevant to the discussion. A quick browse of the IWRA website that you belong to shows the group has zero members with websites posted and the site itself appears hastily improvised and hosted on a free server. Just the sort of thing a handful of resentful Water Rocket hobbyists would throw together to attack the rules body they have clashed with in the past.

    If you don't believe anything about U.S. Water Rockets is verified or substantiated, then why did you and fellow IWRA member HenningNT actually take their single flight of 2,088 feet and insert it as the highest altitude flight? By your own strict verification requirements, that flight, as well as all the others do not belong here, as they are not verified in any way.

    Once again I submit that you are merely attempting to morph the article into one that promotes your idea of a record and your edits are just an IWRA inspired attempt to excise all references to the WRA2 from the article because you have a grudge or are motivated by group affiliations.
    -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    I am trying to offer reasonable solutions, and, wherever possible, trying to apply acceptable standards to my assertions, I am not being abusive, and I want to achieve a real and long-standing solution to both this article and its companion entries such as The_Water_Rocket_Achievement_World_Record_Association. I will leave other readers to draw their own conclusions as to where the problems lie.

    Unfortunately, your past history and group affiliations strongly imply you are simply trying to undermine the organization which I have been working on for years, to forward the agenda of your own group. Readers who care enough to check can verify your past conflicts and see your motivations are not innocent clarifications to the article, but a calculated and deliberate effort to discredit my organization. -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    Please let us get a dialog going and not an argument. Nobody wins a fight.

    Radiotrib 13:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC) - (Kevin Salt - Technical Webmaster - European Space Agency - Research Science Division)


    I believe you individually will simply agree to a compromise and the article will be ammended to a compromised version. At some point in the future another of your IWRA members will materialize from nowhere and start the same exact trouble again. I have left IWRA information entered by your members completely alone and you have all done nothing but attack and try and discredit my association. How would you feel if WRA2 members were on here constantly adding their own opinions of the IWRA to your information? I have instructed them to leave you alone, and by and large they have done so. Why can't your association do the same thing?

    I don't believe this will stop as long as these records are disputed. If there is no way to resolve the disputes, then just remove the references to associations and eliminate the temptation to cause trouble once and for all. -David Walker, Administrator; Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association

    Where Next

    I am not on trial, and neither is the WRA2/USWR consortium. Much of what has been said by WRA2/USWR above is about me and not the article, and in many cases either untrue or out-of-date. However, I am not going to waste any more time arguing personal issues. I will just clarify a couple of points:

    • Regardless of anyone else's opinion I am not acting on behalf on any organisation. This DOES NOT conflict with the fact that I belong to one.
    • I did once offer up a design for a potential world record breaker. It was a 2-stage rocket with a multi-engined cluster booster stage. If I recall correctly, shortly after discussing it on MSN, WRA2 invented a new B-class record category for multi-stage rockets (could this have been to protect their "A class" - just in case ??).
    • I dropped the idea well over a year ago and went back to taking part in adult activities, and now the only rockets I fly are for the occasional amusement of my grandchildren.
    • I made my presence known on the Yahoo forum in 2004. I have been flying rockets for a fair bit longer.
    • None of the above statements from me are in the least bit relevant to the issue in hand.

    Continuing with attempts to prove I am part of a discrediting conspiracy is pointless, is nothing to do with the wiki itself, and isn't going to make me go away. It only serves to show where the self interest truly lies in this dispute.

    To be clear, once and for all - I DO NOT DISPUTE THE CLAIM BY USWR THAT THEY HAVE THE WORLD ALTITUDE RECORD FOR A WATER ROCKET - Now it's in caps can everyone read that ??

    So what do I dispute ?? - I dispute the claim that the WRA2 are the governing body of the sport. They are not. They ar just one group of competition organisers. Isn't that clear yet?

    I have a fairly good idea why the WRA2 are continuing with their campaign of misleading self-promotion across the internet. google_bombing would result in their appearing to be acknowledged as the governing body by sheer weight of reference, without peer group acceptance. An interesting twist on the democratic process. but that is only speculation.

    As for removing reference to the organisation as WRA2 suggested. I do not believe that this will be in anyone's interest, particularly the readers. All I ask is that the WRA2 acknowledge their true position in the sport, as they themselves made clear above, and amend their entry accordingly, both here, and on the page The_Water_Rocket_Achievement_World_Record_Association.

    It would be far better if ALL organising bodies were mentioned rather than none, and I am trying to find out who are the Thai and Japanese bodies (in between trying to earn a living). I don't think the IWRA would thank me for introducing their name into the page until they have something a little more substantial to offer than a name and an idea, but I cannot speak for the organisation, nor any of its individual members.

    You (that's anyone) can reach an agreement with me on this dispute. I want accuracy not a fight. I have already asked the IWRA via their forum, not to become involved in this dispute and not to make any changes in case they inflame an already touchy situation. So far they have left well alone.

    On this discussion page, I requested and expected a civil discourse about the validity of certain (in my opinion) misleading statements on the Water Rockets article. Nothing more, nothing less.

    I have read, and re-read the comments by the WRA2/USWR consortium in the discussion above, and frankly, the disproportionate response to my points, and the attempts to link me to some secret plot to overthrow the WRA2/USWR consortium, is laughable, and in itself is evidence enough of the kind of attitude which they been bring to the table at the slightest hint of dissent. As such, it serves to answer a lot of the questions it raises in itself, and shows, far better than I can, why I will no longer waste my time trying to defend myself by providing explanations of my affiliations, opinions and actions on these pages. (of which I have made no secret).

    The oppression of freedom of expression, and the propagation of inaccurate or untrue statements as "official facts" is a political road which is well documented, well trodden, and has been practiced by unsuccessful, but significantly damaging political regimes, for a very long time. It is already well-known from experience by the people of Europe. I do no suppress the truth, I attempt to expose the untruth. I will not waver from that course, despite the attempts by some parties to discredit my attempts.

    ITS A HOBBY GUYS .. you know .. grown men (well some of us at least) squirting bottles in the air on a Sunday afternoon in summer ... Why don'ty ou all get together .. IWRA/WRA2 and any other organising bodies, and move the game FORWARD rather than trying to propagate a non-existent a war, and dragging it backwards.

    Radiotrib 09:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (on the road)

    Removed all disputed material

    Since Users Radiotrib and HennigNT cannot resist inserting their personal opinions about the WRA2 into the description of the WRA2, I removed all descriptions of both associations who are in this dispute.

    Removed the "Me Too" collection of previous records.

    Corrected Altitude record since the team that set the record does not claim that 2088 flight as a record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association (talk • contribs) 23 March 2007 (UTC)

    Removal of Disputed Items

    Thanks to the above (unsigned) contributor from the USWR/WRA2 Consortium for finally providing a solution. Although it is a rather extreme way of doing it. It would have been preferable to come to an agreed compromise, so that more, and accurate, information was provided to the readership, rather than removing useful references (throwing the baby out with the bathwater??).


    The disputed information was removed as it was merely providing user Radiotrib with fodder to launch more of his personal attacks.

    The Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    For the record, certain coments in the above insertion in this discussion are yet another attempt to discredit the valid correction of factually incorrect, and deliberately misleading sections of this article, by claiming the changes were of a personal nature. Anyone reading this far down the discussions page will already be aware of the previous contributor's methodology when dealing with criticism, so for anyone who wishes to check the real differences between the current form, and those "personal opinions about the WRA2" which were deleted, the following diff is offered. It is the record of those items which were deleted by the WRA2/USWR consortium during the past 2 days.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_rocket&diff=117382822&oldid=117305743


    The WRA2 welcomes valid criticisms, not personal attacks. The wikipedia is not the venue for either of these. Please contact us directly if you have concerns or suggestions. Your personal opinions will be removed from the article if they continue to reappear.

    The Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Regarding the alteration of the current altitude record, if it remains posted on a public web site as a verified altitude, then it should be acknowledged. The wishes/actions of the WRA2 regarding this entry are irrelevant to the article, since that record was set by USWR and not WRA2.


    USWR quite clearly indicates that they do not claim this as a record in their documentation of the flight. I am merely posting the facts as they are presented. There is no way these facts can be interpreted in any way other than that which I have noted here.

    The Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    For this reason, USWR are the only group who can withdraw the previous record. However, if the WRA2 wish to declare that the correction was made by them in their other guise, as USWR, without bothering to change their login, then it should be taken as a withdrawal of their claim. Otherwise I am sure it will stand in the opinions of independent water rocket enthusiasts as the current Water Rocket altitude record.


    You opinions as well as other public opinions are not factual information. Please do not attempt to insert more opinions in the artcle in place of the facts..? The Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Modifications to entries NOT affected by this discussion will be reverted. Descriptions in the links section were factual and accurate and should not have been tampered with.

    Radiotrib 08:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Kevin Salt - Technical Webmaster - European Space Agency - Research Science Division)


    Please apply this same standard to your own edits in the future..?

    The Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Removal of URL

    It would seem that the WRA2 web site is no longer open to the public, but is being selectively closed to individuals for no reason. Since it is obviously a restricted site, I propose that this URL be removed immediately. In addition, as per the discussion and disputed content on this article, it also violated one of the recommendations for "Links Normally to be Avoided" on Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided vis:

    2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources.

    Radiotrib 18:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


    The WRA2 gladly will defer judgement of whether our website is open to the public and/or contains any innacurate materials to the general public or any moderators/editors on the Wikipedia.? The Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    I notice that the WRA2 site has been substantially changed since I have been excluded from viewing it, and it now plays down the WRA2/USWR claim to be the "governing body". The only remaining inaccuracy on that sites front page is the statement that no other organising bodies existed before 2003. I think it would be safe to say that several did exist before that date, including at least one Scottish group who have regularly participated since the 60's.

    the first Water Rocket association ever created when we formed in 2003 - WRA2 Web Site - Home Page - inaccurate and misleading

    History of the WRA2 - WRA2 Web Site - full of the same inaccuracies and misleading information which have been removed from this, and the Water_Rocket_Achievement_World_Record_Association article.


    195.169.141.35 08:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC) (Radiotrib - didn't log in - oops)

    As for the public/private issue, I now find that the WRA2 site is exhibiting selective exclusion based on IP addresses, apparently targeting individuals who are members of the IWRA. Because of the WRA2/USWR Consortium's clumsy attempts to exclude me from their site by forbidding our proxy server, has resulted in the site being closed to every member of the European Space Agency's science division at ESTEC (approximately 200 people). A simple ping to rssd-proxy.estec.esa.int would have confirmed the ip address as a proxy (see also above IP).

    I think this indicates that the site has been closed to a significant number of users, particularly as the hit counter on the home page only records 17,000 visits during the life of the site (with some inner pages as low as 3-400).

    Addendum - 11 April 2007 - The Wra2 Web site has now been closed to even more people in the past 24 hours. The URL to the WRA2 web site has been deleted on the grounds that

    • the site presents inaccurate information, and
    • it is a private, members-only site, in that its administrator chooses to exclude representative members of the community it claims to support.

    Radiotrib 12:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC) - extended 10 April 2007

    This edit has now been reverted by a new editor - see the discussion on Talk:Water_Rocket_Achievement_World_Record_Association. I request that the original deletion stands, and for the same reasons.

    Radiotrib 14:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

    Personal opinions


    Personal opinions have been inserted by an individual who belongs to a newly formed organization who have stated their intent to be a "governing body" for this entire hobby, including the portions the WRA2 has held organized competitions for over the past 4 years. His group defiantly refused to cooperate with the WRA2 and has tried to undermine our credibility on numerous occasions. They wish to build some sort of monopoly by eliminating "competition" through these underhanded guerilla tactics.

    This individual has a long history of attacking the WRA2 on public forums, and his personal opinions as expressed here should be considered in that light.

    These facts can be verified by his own statements in this talk page.

    Since this individual is inserting these spurious disputes as a way to discredit the WRA2 to promote the group he supports and these disputes will be deleted, as they come from a clear bias and are not supported by facts.


    Once again, we ask to be left alone. Please stop these childish attacks.

    The Water Rocket Achievement World Record Association 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    YET AGAIN I HAVE TO POINT OUT - I am not trying to promote any particular group, I am opposing dishonest publication, and self-promotion by the WRA2/USWR Consortium. As for childish - I offer the contents of this talk page as evidence of childish behaviour to anyone who has the patience to read it. (At least the WRA2 had the good sense to revert possibly their most childish insertion to date vis. - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWater_rocket&diff=120186589&oldid=120077910) Every time I have attempted to raise a valid criticism I have been met by aggressive and defamatory responses and accusations. Other people I know have also been subjected to the same treatment by the same group.

    As for the accusations yet again leveled against myself and the IWRA as a body - As far as I am aware, the IWRA would be happy to collaborate with any reasonable, fair and properly constitued organisation who put the interest of the sport first. I have seen clear statements from members of the IWRA committee that they have approached the WRA2/USWR consortium on several occasions, with offers to collaborate. These offers have been turned down, and in addition, members of the IWRA and others have been banned from the WRA2 web site and USWR forum for no reason, and several people have been subjected to groundless defamatory accusations by official representatives of the WRA2.

    I will continue to oppose the WRA2/USWR consortium until they become reasonable in both their claims and their treatment of dissent. I will also not attempt to promote the group to whom I belong on these pages. If the IWRA wish to present themselves on Wikipedia, it is the responsibility of the full membership, by ballot, to instruct the properly elected officers of the association to do so. It is neither my right, nor intention, as a single member, to speak on their behalf.

    Unortunately, since there seems to be no similar form of organisation or representation within WRA2, the one who shouts loudest seems to dictate terms on their behalf. We had a lot of that in Europe when my father was a young man, he opposed it then and even though he is gone I will continue to oppose oppose it now.

    Sorry - that's life.


    HTML has a syntax - eh?

    I have just spend in the order of two to three man hours trying to sort out this mess in order to make the page readable again. I would recommend that until people know how to write effective HTML they should avoid arbitrarily cutting and pasting someone else's formats. These unsuccessful attempts to emulate my styles are screwing up the readability of the entire page.

    Radiotrib 12:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (Kevin Salt)

    Discussion page tidied up - Radiotrib 11:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    There's no point in using HTML. We should use the wiki macros, like the colon for identation. HenningNT 19:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    I agree

    That's what WiKicode is there for, but I wasn't going to go through the entire page replacing all the faulty code. I just cleaned up what was already there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radiotrib (talk • contribs) 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

    Robinson Coupling

    Someone has removed the name and reference to the Robinson coupling. since this is a commonly used and well known term in water Rocket building, I request that it be reinstated, and am asking other editors who know the subject for their comments whether for or against the inclusion of the term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radiotrib (talk • contribs) 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

    Holy Crap

    This is the LONGEST discussion page I have ever seen. And all of it is "he said/she said." 206.116.184.155 23:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

    Holy H2O Batman!

          I was reading about these water rockets, thought they sounded kinda cool.  maybe a little activity for me and my son to get into.  
      But now...I'm not so sure.  Seems that water rocketry makes people go a little wiggy.

    Hope you can't arm these things with warheads.

    Brutalizar 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


    Manometer

    A manometer is a 'U' shaped piece of tubing filled with a fluid using fluid level in one leg of the 'U' to measure differential pressure from one leg to the other. In the case of water, it would require a manometer of extremely large size (>200ft) to measure ~100psi differential between the inside of a water rocket and the atmosphere. A standard pressure guage (bellows or bourdon tube actuated) is much more practical. - Patris Magnus (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

    Where are we getting our physics from?

    The article, under the fins section, currently states the following: stabilizing fins cause the rocket to fall with a significantly higher velocity. Ummm, well, this statement uses such determined language that it sounds convincing. But, from everything I know about physics, this is entirely untrue. Sure, the fins allow it to climb to a higher height, which will result in greater velocities at ground, but surely they only really add to the momentum of the rocket. Is this right? This article has me confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.72.22 (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    Well... Sort of... Correctly constructed fins cause the center of the tipping moment of the rocket to lie behind (aft of) the center of gravity (CG). This causes the rocket to fly nose first, thus presenting a smaller aspect for drag to act upon. This may be simply interpreted as making the rocket fall faster. If the center of the projected side area of the rocket lies at or forward of the CG the rocket will be unstable and tend to flutter as it falls, falling more slowly. Sort of like pushing a wind vane backwards through the air. Eventually it will want to flip around. If the thrust also flips, as a rocket would, the "wind vane" will continually try to flip into the wind thus flying wildly about and eventually crashing. A rocket having the CG sufficiently forward of the center of the side projected area requires no fins at all and will fly straight without fins. In this case adding fins to such a rocket would just add to the drag and actually slow the rocket down. Patris Magnus (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water_rocket/Archive_1&oldid=776259747"