Author Topic: Radiation  (Read 367051 times)

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #915 on: April 03, 2018, 01:49:59 PM »
I have never heard of an "exponential scale" as applied to a graph axis, and neither has the internet, other than as a synonym for logarithmic scale!

No, me neither.
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 #916 on: April 03, 2018, 01:50:03 PM »
So he quotes the average at solar maximum and solar minimum and you are claiming what, the Apollo missions dodged the rain drops?

I am claiming nothing. I am pointing out where you are making mistakes in interpretation. You claim that article states a minimum. It absolutely does not. And no, Apollo did not 'dodge' anything, because what that doesn't actually provide is any indication of the range of the data used to generate that average.

Quote
We must deal in averages because anything else would not be possible

That is categorically untrue.

Quote
and we are talking about accumulated dose which is essentially an average.

How is accumulated anything an average? You calculate an average from the accumulated dose by dividing it over time.

Have you noticed what happens if you actually look at the daily dose rates for each Apollo mission with this in mind? SOme are higher, some are lower (as expected mathematically), and the avergae daily dose rate across all those missions is higher than the average GCR flux quoted in that article.

So, is there no data from the Apollo mission that you re willing to use?  Nasa tells you the Mission operated in a background Cislunar radiation of 1 mrem/hr to 2.5 times that and that is not good enough for you?  What number do you want to use.  Provide one.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #917 on: April 03, 2018, 01:51:14 PM »
I have never heard of an "exponential scale" as applied to a graph axis, and neither has the internet, other than as a synonym for logarithmic scale!

No, me neither.
if the axis is in exponents then it is an exponential scale.  Maybe we should define scale while we are at it.

Offline Rob48

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Radiation
« Reply #918 on: April 03, 2018, 01:53:49 PM »
Here you go Tim. The blue line is the data, the reddy-brown data is the threshold value of 0.22 mGr day-1.

What you can you say about most the blue data, other than SPE events? Plotted on a log graph for you. I've done nothing with the data.
I am a little confused by why the data don't seem to match - are you using a subset?

In your graph it dips below the 0.1 mGy/day line (10-2 cGy/day), whereas the original CRaTER graph has it somewhat higher.



versus




Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Radiation
« Reply #919 on: April 03, 2018, 01:56:05 PM »
It is just me or is this whole graph thing a more sophisticated (looking!) version of the usual "don't try to confuse me with that science stuff, you can clearly see the photograph is all wrong?"

I'm not going to quote Lord Kelvin and all but...do the math. It's a math argument, so do it. With standard statistical methods, error bars and all.


Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #920 on: April 03, 2018, 01:58:26 PM »
If the axis is in exponents then it is an exponential scale.  Maybe we should define scale while we are at it.

No, exponential relates to logarithms in base e (natural logs). Exponent is the number that says how many times to use the number in a multiplication, 23 has an exponent of 3.

If you look at the graph it clearly marked 10-2, 10-1, 100, 101, 102.

or 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100.

The y is scaled so it increases by a factor by 10 each time, so is logarithmic to base 10; a log scale. You're muddling exponents and exponential.

So now I have plotted the graph for you and shown you the line, are you willing to retract your claim that the data in CRaTER does indeed fall below your 0.22 mG day-1. Careful with that last bit, it does not mean tenths of hours.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 02:44:21 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 #921 on: April 03, 2018, 01:58:53 PM »
Here you go Tim. The blue line is the data, the reddy-brown data is the threshold value of 0.22 mGr day-1.

What you can you say about most the blue data, other than SPE events? Plotted on a log graph for you. I've done nothing with the data.
I am a little confused by why the data don't seem to match - are you using a subset?

In your graph it dips below the 0.1 mGy/day line (10-2 cGy/day), whereas the original CRaTER graph has it somewhat higher.



versus



Robb, I am starting to like you.  You are obviously thinking about this...

Offline Rob48

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Radiation
« Reply #922 on: April 03, 2018, 02:01:05 PM »
I have never heard of an "exponential scale" as applied to a graph axis, and neither has the internet, other than as a synonym for logarithmic scale!

No, me neither.
if the axis is in exponents then it is an exponential scale.  Maybe we should define scale while we are at it.

A logarithmic scale is one in which the evenly spaced marks are consecutive powers (exponents) of 10, rather than consecutive integers. So whereas a linear scale would have the check marks at (say), -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4..., a logarithmic scale would have them at (for instance) 10-2, 10-1, 10-0, 101, 102, 103... (or, in other words, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100, 1000...).

In other words, a fixed vertical distance on the logarithmic scale does not represent a fixed numerical amount: at the bottom of the scale one check mark represents (say) 0.09, whereas at the top of the scale it represents (say) 900. Whereas on a linear scale, one check mark represents the same numerical amount no matter where you are on the scale.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
Re: Radiation
« Reply #923 on: April 03, 2018, 02:01:31 PM »
So, is there no data from the Apollo mission that you re willing to use?  Nasa tells you the Mission operated in a background Cislunar radiation of 1 mrem/hr to 2.5 times that and that is not good enough for you?  What number do you want to use.  Provide one.

NASA tells me no such thing. WHat that article says is that the average was 0.24mGy/day. That's an average taken over the Apollo missions, the lunar ones of which took place over a period of 4 years from December 1968 to December 1972. You cannot apply an average over 4 years to a two week period and conclude that because the data show it was lower in that two week period there is something fishy going on. It is mathematically certain that some two week periods will be lower and some will be higher. That is the very definition of 'average'. By your logic something fishy is happening because the average temperature in March in the UK is about 8 degrees C, but last weekend it dropped to -9 degrees in my location.

You are still determined to find some way of interpreting any statement to mean there is some constant background minimum GCR flux that all Apollo missions must be higher than, but the simple fact is there is NO mathematical justification for that whatsoever.
"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 #924 on: April 03, 2018, 02:07:07 PM »
I am a little confused by why the data don't seem to match - are you using a subset?

The CRaTER graph plots an average of detectors 1 and 2, 3 and 4 and 5 and 6, and that ground my machine down as ExCel throws a wobbly after 20000 data points. I plotted data for detector 1 only.

If you look closely at the CRaTER graph, there are some other colours. This is because one subset of CRaTER data blots out another. ExCel points are quite large with huge amounts of data points, so that is an artefact. I can plot detector 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 if it pleases. It makes the same point that there are swathes of data below the line.

Do you accept this explanation, or do I have to retract and go away to the drawing board? I could plot an average of all 6 detectors?
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 #925 on: April 03, 2018, 02:07:45 PM »


Robb, I am starting to like you.  You are obviously thinking about this...
Just curious about the discrepancy in the figures (edit - which Luke has explained in the next post). Nothing to do with the scale, which is logarithmic on both graphs. Perhaps relabelling the axis with long-form numbers instead of the powers of ten would make it clearer to you that this is a logarithmic scale?



(the numbers are in centigrays per day; multiply by 10 for milligrays)
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 02:12:56 PM by Rob48 »

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #926 on: April 03, 2018, 02:09:24 PM »
So, is there no data from the Apollo mission that you re willing to use?  Nasa tells you the Mission operated in a background Cislunar radiation of 1 mrem/hr to 2.5 times that and that is not good enough for you?  What number do you want to use.  Provide one.

NASA tells me no such thing. WHat that article says is that the average was 0.24mGy/day. That's an average taken over the Apollo missions, the lunar ones of which took place over a period of 4 years from December 1968 to December 1972. You cannot apply an average over 4 years to a two week period and conclude that because the data show it was lower in that two week period there is something fishy going on. It is mathematically certain that some two week periods will be lower and some will be higher. That is the very definition of 'average'. By your logic something fishy is happening because the average temperature in March in the UK is about 8 degrees C, but last weekend it dropped to -9 degrees in my location.

You are still determined to find some way of interpreting any statement to mean there is some constant background minimum GCR flux that all Apollo missions must be higher than, but the simple fact is there is NO mathematical justification for that whatsoever.

There is certainly a range with defined limits that GCR's operate within.  If there were not then we certainly could not leave earth because without limits radiation could be any value.  The observed band that existed during the Apollo era was .24 mgy/day to .6 mgy/day, modulated by solar activity.   You can argue range in minutes or seconds but the averages play out over days and weeks.  Deal with it.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 02:22:10 PM by timfinch »

Offline Rob48

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Radiation
« Reply #927 on: April 03, 2018, 02:10:01 PM »
I am a little confused by why the data don't seem to match - are you using a subset?

The CRaTER graph plots an average of detectors 1 and 2, 3 and 4 and 5 and 6, and that ground my machine down as ExCel throws a wobbly after 20000 data points. I plotted data for detector 1 only.

If you look closely at the CRaTER graph, there are some other colours. This is because one subset of CRaTER data blots out another. ExCel points are quite large with huge amounts of data points, so that is an artefact. I can plot detector 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 if it pleases. It makes the same point that there are swathes of data below the line.

Do you accept this explanation, or do I have to retract and go away to the drawing board? I could plot an average of all 6 detectors?

That makes sense. Presumably the values for detector 1 are lower than for detector 2, such that the blue line on the CRaTER chart (1 & 2) is higher than that for detector 1 alone.

Anyway, Tim, you should be able to see that both charts are indeed logarithmic!

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
Re: Radiation
« Reply #928 on: April 03, 2018, 02:15:30 PM »
Since Tim wants to work with averages, here's some numbers, using the Apollo recorded daily dose rates in mGy

Apollo 8          0.26
Apollo 10        0.60
Apollo 11        0.22
Apollo 12        0.57
Apollo 13        0.40
Apollo 14        1.27
Apollo 15        0.24
Apollo 16        0.46
Apollo 17        0.44

Average:   0.50mGy/day

So on average the lunar Apollo missions got twice as much than the 0.24mGy/day average GCR flux stated in the article. Some more, some less. Tell me again why this is a problem, Tim?
"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 onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1458
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Radiation
« Reply #929 on: April 03, 2018, 02:15:54 PM »
And the Chandrayan data was not disregarded. It relates to 2008. Solar max was 2012-2013, where the GCR rate was correspondingly lower, as has been pointed out numerous times. Along with the fact that solar cycle 20 was more active than solar cycle 24, therefore the GCR flux would be even lower during the Apollo missions than was recorded during solar cycle 24.

Do you even understand that this GRC flux is not constant, and that averages mean by definition that some short time periods will have lower flux and some higher than average?

You people are confusing me.  You rejected the CraTer data because it represents a whole different solar cycle and is not applicable to the conditions that existed during the Apollo missions.  I concurred.  I provide data from solar cycle 20 and now you won't shut up about the CraTer data.  If I submitted and played along, in the end you would reject it because it is not applicable.  Why should I waste valuable time that could be used solving other deceptions the misinformed are to disinterested to look at?  I did the hard part now you do the easy part and open your eyes and your mind.

It isn't the CraTer data that are being rejected, it is your interpretation of them.

And do you reject NASA's position that GCR minimum was .2 mgy/day for the Apollo missions.  Why are you not wrapping your mind around that?

If you read carefully the words you quoted, you'll see it is a general figure, not specific to the mission.