Author Topic: Radiation  (Read 630605 times)

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2940 on: April 25, 2018, 01:06:12 PM »
Since Tim has changed his story, I can tell about submarine's diesel tank. It is located between forward crew compartment and reactor compartment because there it acts as an additional radiation shield. I was wondering how Tim, as a nuclear submariner, can reconcile that in submarine structural elements can shield from radiation but on Apollo not. Or maybe he wasn't a real submariner. Apparently, per Cosmoquest, he wasn't.

Lurky

You could not have been a Nuke or even a well trained submariner. If you had been then you would know the diesel tanks were in the ballast tanks and as such would not act as shielding to the the living spaces.  You would know that primary shielding was provided by polyethylene, lead, steel and water tanks used in the operation of the reactor.  You would know that the diesel tanks are placed in the ballast tanks to minimize the impact on trim.  Diesel is replaced by seatwater as it is consumed thereby negating a change in trim.  You embarrass all submarine sailors with this lack of institutional knowledge.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 01:47:55 PM by timfinch »

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2941 on: April 25, 2018, 02:13:54 PM »
Same old crap on CQ I see. Same misconceptions, same use of published papers that actually contradict his stated opinion, and same refusal to actually show any of his own work. Troll troll troll...
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Geordie

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2942 on: April 25, 2018, 04:02:20 PM »
I know not a single one of you knew this or you would have recognized that Braeuning was attempting to deceive you.  Show me your respect for pulling the wool off your eyes by creating a Go Fund me account to continue my research.

I'm wading my way through this thread post by post (only six days behind; I remember being on p. 20 trying to catch up to p. 40, seems so quaint now) and I must say almost all of the replies to this what seems to me to be an obvious troll are remarkably tolerant and otherwise in good faith, in addition to being loaded with educational material, cold hard facts, and the knowledge of how to apply said facts.

Thanks, to everyone posting helpful, collegiate information, and to timfinch for making it all possible, even if she can't or won't admit to recognizing its veracity.

Sadly, although a lifelong Apollo Program enthusiast (I used to build rectangular prism-style Saturn Vs out of Lego ~45 years ago as well as drawing them "realistically" in kindergarten and grade one,) I came to this site solely for the schadenfreude, but the impressive demonstration of collective knowledge and experience is why I have stayed.

Well, it's back to post #2183 for me...

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2943 on: April 25, 2018, 05:05:55 PM »
Since Tim has changed his story, I can tell about submarine's diesel tank. It is located between forward crew compartment and reactor compartment because there it acts as an additional radiation shield. I was wondering how Tim, as a nuclear submariner, can reconcile that in submarine structural elements can shield from radiation but on Apollo not. Or maybe he wasn't a real submariner. Apparently, per Cosmoquest, he wasn't.

Lurky
Aha, I was right then.

I also think that would place it fairly close to the diesel motor itself (you'd want to keep the fuel lines as short as possible). The diesel motor is usually in the bottom of the boat, directly below the conning tower, an understandable position because the exhaust needs to get out of the smoke stack which is usually on the conning tower. You would want to keep that exhaust pipe run as short as possible too.
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Northern Lurker

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2944 on: April 25, 2018, 05:25:24 PM »
And full disclosure: I have set my foot on a sub only twice, both were decomissioned museum boats. My info is from open sources like Tom Clancy's non-fiction Submarine and other publications and websites I have come across.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2945 on: April 25, 2018, 05:33:09 PM »
Really big surprise, he hasn't changed his style or numbers.  I expect he won't last more than a couple of days and then be suspended or banned.
LO, this is your decision, but I would take a long hard look at his new thread

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?168399-I-m-back-with-a-vengeance-and-undeniable-proof-of-the-Moon-Hoax&p=2446967#post2446967

Before determining whether to allow him to post again.

He demanded the right to administer the thread he started, to determine the direction in which it went, and then deliberately and willfully challenged the mods to silence him. That just reeks of "suicide by mod" and will almost certainly be followed by pigeon chess.... going back to his echo chamber nutcase CT sites claiming victory and his banning as a badge of honour.

As we would say in this country..... what a wanker! 
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2946 on: April 25, 2018, 05:45:04 PM »
His latest on the 7 degree inclination at TLI burn.

CQ User Clanger: The flight path angle contributed to a small change in inclination.

Tim Finch: A rocket is not a plane and there is no air to act upon wings even if it had them. so what difference does a flight path angle matter?

I'm no longer sure what to think.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2947 on: April 25, 2018, 06:00:07 PM »
His latest on the 7 degree inclination at TLI burn.

CQ User Clanger: The flight path angle contributed to a small change in inclination.

Tim Finch: A rocket is not a plane and there is no air to act upon wings even if it had them. so what difference does a flight path angle matter?

I'm no longer sure what to think.
I am wondering what Tim will make of the graph on page 2 of this...
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2948 on: April 25, 2018, 06:59:57 PM »
His latest on the 7 degree inclination at TLI burn.

CQ User Clanger: The flight path angle contributed to a small change in inclination.

Tim Finch: A rocket is not a plane and there is no air to act upon wings even if it had them. so what difference does a flight path angle matter?

I'm no longer sure what to think.
I am wondering what Tim will make of the graph on page 2 of this...
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf
Obliviously low. ;)
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2949 on: April 25, 2018, 07:02:12 PM »
His latest on the 7 degree inclination at TLI burn.

CQ User Clanger: The flight path angle contributed to a small change in inclination.

Tim Finch: A rocket is not a plane and there is no air to act upon wings even if it had them. so what difference does a flight path angle matter?

I'm no longer sure what to think.

I only hope Clanger gets further than I did, as tim still doesn't believe Apollo changed plans.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2950 on: April 25, 2018, 07:34:17 PM »
His latest on the 7 degree inclination at TLI burn.

CQ User Clanger: The flight path angle contributed to a small change in inclination.

Tim Finch: A rocket is not a plane and there is no air to act upon wings even if it had them. so what difference does a flight path angle matter?

I'm no longer sure what to think.

He goes further, stating "...Rockets use thrusters to steer and the main engines are used for thrust to obtain the necessary speed."

I'm tempted to log this one as being loose with language again; using common or colloquial terms instead of the appropriate technical terminology, but on reflection it amounts to the same thing. The group of people who misuse terminology map very well to the group of people who don't understand the underlying concepts.

Who the heck uses "speed" in a spaceflight context? But that's not anywhere near the weirdness of talking about "steering."



I'm still on the fence with him. I really don't know if he is having one on and role-playing this TimFinch character, or if he is a truly stunning poster boy for Dunning-Kruger, truly unable to conceive of any reality that doesn't match his naive understanding.

Counter to the later is that in his latest (now merged) thread at CQ he's very slightly modified some of his arguments and explanations to make use of material he was provided here (without, of course, ever acknowledging his previous ideas were wrong). Counter to the former is I have trouble believing in someone who could play flawlessly that kind of role for that long.

He really seems to believe this stuff, like when he lectures a working scientist and a college-level instructor on first year (hell, first WEEK) Statistics.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2951 on: April 25, 2018, 07:42:21 PM »
The group of people who misuse terminology map very well to the group of people who don't understand the underlying concepts.

I'd agree with that but there's something else going on with him for sure. Witness his argument that my model showed 'perpendicular' components...
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2952 on: April 25, 2018, 07:50:19 PM »
When he comes back in I'm tempted to demand he define "perpendicular." You know he'd just waffle; first throw it back, "I'm not your English teacher. If you didn't learn it yet I suggest you go back to high school." Then use every answer that isn't his own; cut and paste from some online dictionary (the less mainstream the dictionary, the better).

He seems to just plain have an aversion to answering anything from anyone, and I truly can not tell if it is in arrogant affront that anyone else dare speak when it is his turn to lecture, or a sneaking realization that he truly knows nothing and is trying to throw up a wall of chaff to hide it.

Or possibly both. He's really a Monk Plus, able to hold at least two incompatible beliefs in his head at the same time.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2953 on: April 25, 2018, 10:47:50 PM »
2.  What types of secondary radiation are produced in the CM as it traverses the belts?
Protons, neutrons, electrons, gammas and x-rays, and alpha particles

3.  Explain the mechanism for the secondary radiation.
Material shielding can be effective against galactic cosmic rays, but thin shielding may actually make the problem worse for some of the higher energy rays, because more shielding causes an increased amount of secondary radiation.  In interplanetary space, however, it is believed that thin aluminium shielding would give a net increase in radiation exposure but would gradually decrease as more shielding is added to capture generated secondary radiation. The main contributions to the radiation doses arise from high-energy heavy ion (HZE) particles. As the incident radiations attenuate in the shield material, there is a significant buildup of secondary particles resulting from nuclear fragmentation and coulomb dissociation processes. A substantial fraction of these secondaries are energetic protons and neutrons. During solar minimum periods, at least 1 g/era 2 of liquid hydrogen shielding, 3.5 g/cm 2 of water shielding, or 6.5 g/cm 2 of aluminum shielding will be needed to keep the estimated risk to the blood-forming organs below the current annual Space Station Freedom limit of 0.5 Sv/year.   The preferred materials of choice for galactic cosmic  ray shielding are materials with low atomic mass number constituents and significant hydrogen content.
4.  How does the material in the hull affect the spectrum of radiation produced.
The heavier the atomic number of the shielding the greater the resultant secondaries
5.  Describe the penetration of that secondary radiation through the CM.
Braeunig claims forty percent of the incident proton energy is radiated in the form of secondary particles and electromagnetic radiation.  Because these energies are easily absorbed in the body the damage is actually greater from the secondaries tha the primaries.

6.  How does the integral flux for electrons > 1 MeV change with energy?
The integral flux decreases as energy increases.

7. The geomagnetic axis and normal to the orbital plane at TLI are inclined to each other. How does this effect the distribution of radiation relative to the orbital plane? 
The geomagnetic equator is 11.5 degrees above the geographical equator.  This results in a lunar plane of roughly 29 degrees to the equator being 17.5 degrees above the geomagnetic equator.
8. Another question for tim: accepting for the moment Orion and Apollo had the same parking orbit in LEO, and remained have you considered the effect of Orion and Apollo starting their apogee-raising burns at different points in their orbit? 
I have repeatedly stated the only contributing factor in radiation exposure other than time is angle or inclinatination of the transit.  The steeper the inclination the lower the exposure.  The TLI does not change the the orbital plane it only expands the apogee of the orbit.  Rockets do not steer with the main engine, they steer with thrusters and unless they did then they would remain on identical orbital planes.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 10:54:30 PM by timfinch »

Offline Ranb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 266
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2954 on: April 26, 2018, 01:01:03 AM »
You could not have been a Nuke or even a well trained submariner.
I was.  Nuke school class 8401, served on Tautog, Jacksonville, Bates and Cavalla.  Had NEC's of 3355/3365 and eventually 3366.

If you had been then you would know the diesel tanks were in the ballast tanks and as such would not act as shielding to the the living spaces.
Actually what you describe is the arrangement of a diesel powered submarine.  They were equipped with diesel/ballast tanks

  You would know that primary shielding was provided by polyethylene, lead, steel and water tanks used in the operation of the reactor.
You may want to be careful what details you reveal about submarines.  Surely you were debriefed on the nature of certain classified information you were exposed to in the USN prior to leaving the service.  I've been looking for an unclassified description of a typical USN nuclear powered submarine tank and compartment layout, but the best I can find is one of the Ohio class on Wikipedia.  It shows a tank or void near the RC, but it's not labeled.

You would know that the diesel tanks are placed in the ballast tanks to minimize the impact on trim.  Diesel is replaced by seatwater as it is consumed thereby negating a change in trim.  You embarrass all submarine sailors with this lack of institutional knowledge.
The NFO tank on a nuke boat contains seawater and diesel fuel; it is not used as a trim tank although use of the fuel can affect trim since diesel is lighter than seawater.  This is normally not a problem as use of the DG is minimized.

As I've said before, the information we were exposed to in nuclear power school and prototype has little to do with the environment in space.  It would be better if you told us more about how well you understand the relevant source material related to space travel instead of trying to impress us with your naval nuclear power background.

ETA:  Here is a link you can search for that shows the layout of the reactor, primary shield and secondary shield of a UK nuclear submarine.  NTEC Radiation Shielding Module : A Shielding Application  Note the location of the forward shield tank, they call it the DOF tank.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2018, 01:28:53 AM by Ranb »