Author Topic: Radiation  (Read 367054 times)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3757
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #945 on: April 03, 2018, 02:47:33 PM »
I think you guys don't understand the difference between Exponential and Logarithmic but that is just my opinion.

Indeed, I've only used those concepts and the associated data visualization methods every day of my professional life for the past 30 years.  Hey, I've never operated a submarine before, but I think I could do it better than you.  But that's just my opinion.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #946 on: April 03, 2018, 02:48:12 PM »
I even have some concern about your ability to read a graph.

Says the man that cannot read an ASCII data file.
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 Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #947 on: April 03, 2018, 02:50:36 PM »
Hey, I've never operated a submarine before, but I think I could do it better than you.  But that's just my opinion.

Easy, make sure the lid is tight and then drive it around under water. There's no traffic lights or interchanges. There's not a great deal of traffic under the sea. Pfffft, how can it be hard. Any moron can do it when you think about it.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 02:55:54 PM by Luke Pemberton »
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 nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Radiation
« Reply #948 on: April 03, 2018, 02:51:05 PM »
Cargo cult science.

As the good doctor said, "That's funny..." is exciting in science. That's when the data doesn't meet expectations. At which point you check the equipment, check the assumptions, check the calculations. The first and best guess is always that you made a mistake somewhere. When peer review works properly, that is what it does; get a whole bunch of other eyes looking at it to see if THEY can figure our where you messed up.

Or you can double down on the finding, argue the reviews, selectively search the literature for data that confirms (never data that disagrees). Not saying it doesn't happen. It does, a lot. We all do it. It even has some utility. But it is also characteristic of bad science.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #949 on: April 03, 2018, 03:03:15 PM »
I think you guys don't understand the difference between Exponential and Logarithmic but that is just my opinion.

Indeed, I've only used those concepts and the associated data visualization methods every day of my professional life for the past 30 years.  Hey, I've never operated a submarine before, but I think I could do it better than you.  But that's just my opinion.

I have never operated a submarine either.  I have supervised the operation of a Nuclear Power Plant and I don't think you could have passed the entrance requirement as you had to know a logarithmic scale does not have equal distant points and that seems to have eluded you

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #950 on: April 03, 2018, 03:05:24 PM »
To get a more manageable data file I set it to just one year in the middle of the range.

I've found a little button in ExCel that makes life a bit easier when filling cells with the same formula. I can manipulate the data quickly to take an average of all detectors, or a subset of detectors. Here's an average of all 6 detectors, although I think we've moved on, and my line is in the wrong place as it's not a log scale.  ???
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 03:16:08 PM by Luke Pemberton »
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 timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #951 on: April 03, 2018, 03:06:57 PM »
Hey, I've never operated a submarine before, but I think I could do it better than you.  But that's just my opinion.

Easy, make sure the lid is tight and then drive it around under water. There's no traffic lights or interchanges. There's not a great deal of traffic under the sea. Pfffft, how can it be hard. Any moron can do it when you think about it.

Only 10% of those who apply are accepted and a third of those that are accepted complete the rigorous training regimen.  I am not sure you have the right stuff.

Offline MBDK

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #952 on: April 03, 2018, 03:08:08 PM »
Luke has shown you values lower and in a period that would have a greater flux than during all of the Apollo missions.

In fairness it was MBDK who posted the initial example. I just made the numbers look pretty to try and help Tim.

My bad and  do apologize to MBDK.

No apology necessary.  I was inspired by all the hard work and dedication by all the constructive contributors on this forum.  I want to belatedly thank all of you for many a personal enlightenment.
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields

"Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy." - Lord John Whorfin

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #953 on: April 03, 2018, 03:11:14 PM »
I don't think you could have passed the entrance requirement as you had to know a logarithmic scale does not have equal distant points and that seems to have eluded you

Please compute the ordinate values on the CRaTER graph, 10-4, 10-3, 10-2, 10-1, 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104 and then explain to me how they can be equidistant.

OK, I'll do that for you.

10-4 =  0.0001
10-3 = 0.001
10-2 = 0.01
10-1 = 0.1
100 = 1
101 = 10
102 =100
103 =1000
104 =1000

They're not equidistant are they? What is the common factor between each ordinate. OK, I'll do that for you?

10.

There you go, it's a log scale... tada!!!!
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 03:14:32 PM by Luke Pemberton »
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 Rob48

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Radiation
« Reply #954 on: April 03, 2018, 03:11:59 PM »

No.  I am absolutely sure they are not logarithmic.  I am unsure about your ability to understand the difference between a logarithmic scale and and exponential scale.  I even have some concern about your ability to read a graph.
Can you explain the difference, then? What would you call a scale with consecutive tick marks at 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100, 1000...? I would call it logarithmic.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
Re: Radiation
« Reply #955 on: April 03, 2018, 03:12:54 PM »
There can be no question the doses reported by the lunar missions are well within the expected LEO dose profiles.

No-one is questioning the data, only your interpretation. You have NOT considered the variables, and you have NOT grasped that the average GCR flux does NOT provide a baseline that all lunar missions must exceed.

Quote
I think you guys don't understand the difference between Exponential and Logarithmic but that is just my opinion.

I don't really feel like having my mathematical knowledge criticised by someone who, just a couple of hours ago, showed that he could not understand the difference between A x 10-1 and A-1, or that 1/A = A-1, which was something I learned in school.
"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 Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #956 on: April 03, 2018, 03:13:15 PM »
Only 10% of those who apply are accepted and a third of those that are accepted complete the rigorous training regimen.

Don't use numbers, not your strong point.
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 JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3757
    • Clavius
Re: Radiation
« Reply #957 on: April 03, 2018, 03:17:29 PM »
I have never operated a submarine either.  I have supervised the operation of a Nuclear Power Plant and I don't think you could have passed the entrance requirement as you had to know a logarithmic scale does not have equal distant points and that seems to have eluded you

Doubling down on the bluster only makes you look more foolish.  I'm not sure where you're getting that I said a logarithmic scale had "equal distant points," as I've said no such thing.  But hey, if tarring your critics with made-up accusations is all you've got, then I guess I'm right to keep ignoring you.

Remember the part where I'm a professional engineer, with a degree in engineering and 30 years' experience?  Maybe you don't know this, but engineers are actually legally liable for the correctness of their mathematical understanding, as well a their understanding of the physical world.  So who is more likely to be right about how to read a logarithmic scale:  a bunch of professional scientists and engineers who do this for a living?  Or some guy off the street who's just learning about it?
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline MBDK

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #958 on: April 03, 2018, 03:17:38 PM »
the problem is tim at the end of the day quite a few people have contributed here and from reading it it seems they are correct. I say this because you keep switching topics. however, and I would too in their shoes, it wont be long before your account Is revoked I suspect

If he were on cosmoquest's forum, he would have been suspended multiple times and eventually banned long ago.  This forum is more lenient, as at least some of those who stay the course find his childish obstinance amusing, and allows them (me, too) to practice their debating and critical thinking skills.
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields

"Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy." - Lord John Whorfin

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #959 on: April 03, 2018, 03:18:18 PM »
I don't think you could have passed the entrance requirement as you had to know a logarithmic scale does not have equal distant points and that seems to have eluded you

Please compute the ordinate values on the CRaTER graph, 10-4, 10-3, 10-2, 10-1, 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104 and then explain to me how they can be equidistant.

OK, I'll do that for you.

10-4 =  0.0001
10-3 = 0.001
10-2 = 0.01
10-1 = 0.1
100 = 1
101 = 10
102 =100
103 =1000
104 =1000

They're not equidistant are they? What is the common factor between each ordinate. OK, I'll do that for you.

10.

There you go, it's a log scale... tada!!!!

Luke, Luke, Luke....  Now deep in your heart you know that each mark in a grid represents a tenth of that grid.  Now if the spacings of these marks are equidistant then it is a linear grid.  If they are spaced as a log function then it is a logarithmic scale.  Why would you call it a log scale if you were not using logs in the scale?