Talk:Superconducting Super Collider

message: I visited the Smithsonian American History Museum yesterday and there was a good size section on the SSC, their info cited and some listed here:  conflicts with alot of the info on this page!!!!!
I hope to go back soon and take notes for posting on this page, if I can get permission from the Smithsonian i'll post pictures from there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.155.172 (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Alot of wrong info, source: Smithsonian American History Museum

message: After I finish my history of physics paper on the SCC, I'll pimp this article. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements coming 

message: There is at least one scifi novel, Einstein's Bridge by John Cramer, which features the SSC and its cancellation as an integral plot device. There is also the song Supercollider by the band Tribe which is a fictionalized account of a scientist working at the SSC. Would this article be enhanced by inclusion of either or both of these pop references? 24.161.67.9 11:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already put a map link at the bottom of the page Gunter 03:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SSC in pop culture 

message: Near as I can tell, there are only two potentially infringing paragraphs. The first paragraph in the Cancellation section and all the sentances in the first paragraph, save for the last one.
I would proposal that we delete the first paragraph of the Cancellation section and and rewrite the intro paragraph, however, I'm not going to propose because I don't think Wikipedia is the website doing the infringing.
Here's the article as it looked on 27 June 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superconducting_Super_Collider&oldid=4891237
The "A Brief Overview" section of the rootsweb.com website is an exact copy of this.
Further, take a look at archive.org's copy of the rootsweb.com website:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.rootsweb.com/~txecm/super_collider.htm
Their first archive of that website is on 03 Sept 2004.
My theory is this. That this txecm user at rootsweb.com copied wikipedia.org. In that case, changing wikipedia.org when they're the ones who did the copying is something that I would consider to be almost offensive. TerraFrost 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if that be the case than no problem is involved, good job at the archive researching. I know that some websites do this and it is often questionable who has done the copying. --MJHankel 22:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  alleged copyright infringement 

message: This site is a large attraction for Urban Explorers and Vandals alike. Many of the doors and windows have been broken. I have pictures, if I can find them. SpigotMap 20:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, put'em online. --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 15:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban Exploration 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The first paragraph states the SSC was to be built in Utah, but construction obviously began in Texas. Is anyone else confused by this? Projectbluebird (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My father said that his grandmother (I think) signed a lease under her farm for this and she lived in Waxahachie. The town is in Ellis County. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location? 

message: Currently, SCSC redirects to the "Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs." I've often seen SCSC used in reference to this, so if noone has any objection I'll disambiguate it in a couple of days. I'm also leaving a note there, pointing to this discussion here. Joe (Talk) 22:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, changed. Joe (Talk) 19:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCSC 

message: *Who’s afraid of the Superconducting Super Collider? October 29, 2009
*Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) Ellis County, Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.138.233 (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: articles

message: "Congress officially canceled the project October 21, 1993 after $2 billion had been spent."
If con is the opposite of pro, what is the opposite of progress? ---Dagme (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congress 

message: The article omits two important reasons for opposition to the Supercollider within the scientific community: it was very unlikely to yield profitable or useful applications or technological spinoffs (too many bucks for too little innovative hi-tech bang), and, its results would have been meaningful only to a very small number of scientists, all in the same ultra-specialized sub-field (too esoteric).    HandsomeMrToad (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Other reasons, besides expense, for opposition to SSC

message: What can be said about the SC Magnet design, materials, development. It seems, from hints in abstracts, they were in some way based on those used in Tevatron at Fermilab. To use Nb-Ti ? and the dipole magnets needed to create 6.6 tesla fields. Any open access sources ? - Rod57 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a publication documenting the magnet design details from the SSC's Conceptual Design written at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. It was produced by the SSC Central Design Group in 1986. I worked in the CDG until the SSC moved to Texas, then I continued in the Magnet Design group for a few years. It jogs my memory to read it. Jack-z (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnet design, materials, development 

message: Paragraph 2 of the section reads like a stale grievance and lacks sourcing of any kind. A claim is made (using "conventional facility buildout" jargon) about the actual budget share of tunneling — followed by a claim that magnets were actually "the major cost item," avoiding clarity about whether magnets were the principal or largest budget item. The few verifiable statements are unsourced. It's tempting to delete the paragraph. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 16:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words in "Comparison with Large Hadron Collider"