'Donald Campbell- The Final Record Attempt' by Neil Sheppard

[Renegadenemo]

No. Nearer, surely?

I'd be interested to see the numbers. Can't think how you'd work out the range using height alone from a single point. Hmmm, off to ponder.

The height discrepancy does throw up one thing in my mind, how far out does it throw out the calculations used when ascertaining the details of the crash on the fateful run, or were the calculations based on the craft herself?

I hope not because all those value are wrong too!

[Mike Bull]

I suppose a next question is, how far wrong does this make the analysis based on the incorrect figure? If the boat is around six inches lower than the figure used, that would make it what, further away in the image/film than thought?

No. Nearer, surely?

I'd been out of bed for ten minutes following a night shift and really wasn't sure, so I'm not going to argue!

Bill- the position isn't calculated using a single point- in the book Mr Mitchell has used Robbie's estimates of how far out the marker buoys were moored from the shore, and has used their known size and estimated positions to calculate against the height of K7 as it passes the buoy in the film still. The 'errors involved' are noted, though of course that doesn't include the incorrect boat height.

[thunderer]

How you would discover range is fairly simple.

When considering range, there is a simple way to show it's effects by laying a length of rope in a straight line on the floor. Putting a finger at the centre point of the rope, pull it backwards. See how it goes into a "V"? That is how range is perceived by the human eye, as a "V"

Anything that is in the distance, from a standing point where you are, is seen in a "V" when seeing a craft or vehicle because we see both ends of said craft or vehicle.

The length of said vehicle from the standing point, measured with a rule at 6 inches away from the eye when reading it, when calculated against known dimensions of the vehicle, should give an accurate range if calculated accurately enough.

The easy way, is to use a ranging stick and digital equipment such as is used by road builders.................

[Renegadenemo]

Mr Mitchell has used Robbie's estimates of how far out the marker buoys were moored from the shore, and has used their known size and estimated positions

You're kidding me! We took Robbie to the wreck in 2001 so he could direct the ROV and see what he wanted to see and his reaction on mooring at the site was to say, 'it can't be here'.
He imagined it to be way south of where it actually sank.

[DamienB]

I suspect this is one that will rumble on until the beast is in one piece and somebody hangs a plumb bob off a plank across the top of the tail...

[Renegadenemo]

Neil and I picked up the phone and had a proper shouting match tonight.
He felt that his hard work and that of others was being publicly disrespected on our forum while I felt that preferring to believe half-century-old Norris Bros documents then putting it in a history book, errors and all, when we've spent the last six years dragging every engineering detail from Donald's old boat and making better data available was publicly disrespecting all the hard work of the BBP, so we told each other exactly what we thought in no uncertain terms.
Neil would prefer that such things be quietly resolved behind closed doors - I prefer absolute transparency even if it hurts now and again, which is a throwback to the old HLF days when they'd create yards of dirty laundry then try to cover it up and I wasn't having any of that, so Neil and I bashed out that issue as well as the deeper reasons for our failed comm's over the past few months then we agreed to work together, not make the same daft mistakes and be damned sure to have all our ducks in a row for the second edition because we're actually great mates as well as supposedly being on the same side!
The reality is that Neil's analysis is undoubtedly the best by far, it's right on the money and, at the end of the day, none of the irksome little errors change a damn thing.
I also forget sometimes that not everyone has been battle-hardened at the pointy end of this whole Bluebird saga so, Neil, if you're listening, please accept my personal apology for the distress caused and let's crack on. You're doing a fantastic job.

Bill

[mtskull]

The reality is that Neil's analysis is undoubtedly the best by far, it's right on the money and, at the end of the day, none of the irksome little errors change a damn thing.
I also forget sometimes that not everyone has been battle-hardened at the pointy end of this whole Bluebird saga so, Neil, if you're listening, please accept my personal apology for the distress caused and let's crack on. You're doing a fantastic job.

Wise words, mate. Spoken like a man.

[mtskull]

I'd be interested to see the numbers. Can't think how you'd work out the range using height alone from a single point. Hmmm, off to ponder.

Fairly straightforward; the angle which an object subtends in the field of vision of the viewer depends on the distance from the viewer. This is in the ratio of 1:60; i.e. an object 1 foot high that is 60 feet away subtends an angle of one degree. Therefore, if you know the size of the object you are viewing and can measure the angle accurately, you can work out the distance to the object.

My own rough calculations suggest that an 8' high object at half a mile would subtend the same angle as a 7'6" high object that was 140' nearer.

Frankly, I'm splitting hairs here; none of this detracts from the fact that it was Neil who recognised a phenomenon that nobody else had spotted, even though it was staring us all in the face. (No, I'm not giving that away here, go and buy your own copy of the book!)

[sheppane]

Neil and I picked up the phone and had a proper shouting match tonight.
He felt that his hard work and that of others was being publicly disrespected on our forum while I felt that preferring to believe half-century-old Norris Bros documents then putting it in a history book, errors and all, when we've spent the last six years dragging every engineering detail from Donald's old boat and making better data available was publicly disrespecting all the hard work of the BBP, so we told each other exactly what we thought in no uncertain terms.
Neil would prefer that such things be quietly resolved behind closed doors - I prefer absolute transparency even if it hurts now and again, which is a throwback to the old HLF days when they'd create yards of dirty laundry then try to cover it up and I wasn't having any of that, so Neil and I bashed out that issue as well as the deeper reasons for our failed comm's over the past few months then we agreed to work together, not make the same daft mistakes and be damned sure to have all our ducks in a row for the second edition because we're actually great mates as well as supposedly being on the same side!
The reality is that Neil's analysis is undoubtedly the best by far, it's right on the money and, at the end of the day, none of the irksome little errors change a damn thing.
I also forget sometimes that not everyone has been battle-hardened at the pointy end of this whole Bluebird saga so, Neil, if you're listening, please accept my personal apology for the distress caused and let's crack on. You're doing a fantastic job.

Bill

Bill,

Thats a magnanimous gesture. I'm glad we have been able to address our differences in a proper way. There are a couple of small discrepancies between the data you have, and that we have sourced from KWN and AEJ. I think it would be useful to iron those out because I do hope we can do a second edition with this and any other material incorporated. I don't believe it will change the outcome, but I know we all want the most accurate info out there in the public domain.

Thanks again from both Keith and I for your thoughts above. I think we all feel a lot better for it.

Neil

[sheppane]

I will be signing a few more books on Thursday at Coniston Records week.

Down at the Bluebird Cafe around midday, and then up at the Ruskin Museum at 3pm.
If you're in the area, and have not got a copy of either the standard signed edition, or the beautiful collectors edition, do drop by.

Then you can get to read about the real Bluebird, and its arrival at Coniston, for the last time, 45 years ago, November 1966... I hope the weather is as kind as it was on that day... sunlit skies and a gentle gentle breeze.