Radiation

[Jason Thompson]

Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us

Is that a concession that actually you were wrong and the CraTer graph is actually logarithmic?

Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time.  Can we make this work?

Those averages are already there. The graph shows the avergaes of detectors 1&2, 3&4 and 5&6. The whole GCR curve still spends a large part of the time under your 0.2mGy.day 'minimum'

[Rob48]

My confusion arises from the fact, early in the discussion when you insisted the raw data did not have to converted to logarithms.  You said that was not how it worked and I assume then you continued to insist the plot of raw data looked like the plot of logarithmic data and I couldn't understand how that was possible.  I understand now.

Ah, I think I see where your misunderstanding arises. You don't convert the data in order to plot it on a logarithmic graph. All you do is adjust the scale of the axes.

A value of 0.2 is still 0.2 whether you plot it on a linear scale or a logarithmic one. All that differs is that on a linear scale, it will be 20% of the way between the 0 mark and the 1 mark, whereas on a logarithmic scale, it will be (log 2 / log 10) = ~30% of the way between the 0.1 mark and the 1 mark. Get it?

[Luke Pemberton]

Ah, I think I see where your misunderstanding arises. You don't convert the data in order to plot it on a logarithmic graph. All you do is adjust the scale of the axes.

I said this about 10³ pages back, or 1000 on a linear scale. I'm sure I did.

[JayUtah]

I said this about 10³ pages back, or 1000 on a linear scale. I'm sure I did.

You did.

[timfinch]

Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data.  Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time.  Can we make this work?

Which ones are outward facing?

1-4...

[timfinch]

My confusion arises from the fact, early in the discussion when you insisted the raw data did not have to converted to logarithms.  You said that was not how it worked and I assume then you continued to insist the plot of raw data looked like the plot of logarithmic data and I couldn't understand how that was possible.  I understand now.

Ah, I think I see where your misunderstanding arises. You don't convert the data in order to plot it on a logarithmic graph. All you do is adjust the scale of the axes.

A value of 0.2 is still 0.2 whether you plot it on a linear scale or a logarithmic one. All that differs is that on a linear scale, it will be 20% of the way between the 0 mark and the 1 mark, whereas on a logarithmic scale, it will be (log 2 / log 10) = ~30% of the way between the 0.1 mark and the 1 mark. Get it?

That would cause the graph to look like a traditional logarithmic graph with logarithmic spacing.  To achieve the CraTer graph with linear spacing you would have to convert the raw data to logs.

[Jason Thompson]

The CraTer graph does not have linear spacing. We've been over this. It is a traditional log graph with no conversion of the data. Why are you so insistent that it is not?

[Luke Pemberton]

Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data.  Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time.  Can we make this work?

Which ones are outward facing?

1-4...

Here you go... what can you say about the dose data compared to your threshold?

[Rob48]

To achieve the CraTer graph with linear spacing you would have to convert the raw data to logs.

The CRaTER graph doesn't have linear spacing. Look at the scale. It is logarithmic!



I thought you had just agreed this?

[Luke Pemberton]

I said this about 10³ pages back, or 1000 on a linear scale. I'm sure I did.

You did.

Given the donkey work I'm doing with this graph plotting, I've not had a chance to ask you some questions about radiation detection and orbital mechanics. I need time to think through my questions properly, and do a little research. Hope you are well - along with everyone else. I've been absent from the forum about 1 year. Far too busy and a little unwell to be honest - nothing serious!

[Rob48]

Here are the individual detector data. I have drawn a line at the 0.2 mGy/day level.

[bknight]

Ok, now that we have gotten that pesky logarithmic debacle past us it is time we addressed the CraTer Data.  Realizing the that detectors 5 & 6 face toward the moon and the other pair have different shielding to represent different parts of body exposure to get a good idea of what whole body GCR exposure would look like to an astronaut, what say we average the the outward facing detectors and plot the dose over time.  Can we make this work?

Which ones are outward facing?

1-4...

Here you go... what can you say about the dose data compared to your threshold?

Some of those points appear to be approximately .1 which is significantly lower the AVERAGE dose during A11, and for your bonus this was in a period of lower flux.
tim can you see where your interpretation of the data not bear out.

And

Here are the individual detector data. I have drawn a line at the 0.2 mGy/day level.

there are definitely points lower than .1, go figure tim. 

ETA:
And this data occurs in a higher flux than that of Apollo.

[Luke Pemberton]

Here are the individual detector data. I have drawn a line at the 0.2 mGy/day level.

What is beautiful about this graph is the consistency in recording the SPEs, but the slight variation in dose. This should highlight to Tim that detectors on board the same vehicle give different values for the dose, so why shouldn't the dose monitoring equipment on board another vehicle give different values.

In respect of this observation I look at the recent figure of 0.24 mGy/day he cited and the Apollo 11 data of 0.22 mGy/day. There is a discrepancy for the lower value in the Apollo dosimetery and the figure he cited from the literature, but the figures are well within tolerances or equipment and sampling errors. There is the issue of using averages too, which have been discussed at length.

This only serves to illustrate the complexity of the problem, which seems quite wasted on our friend with his broad statements of whataboutery.

[timfinch]

The CraTer graph does not have linear spacing. We've been over this. It is a traditional log graph with no conversion of the data. Why are you so insistent that it is not?

It is probably because each of the little tick marks are equidistantly spaced and not logarithmically spaced.

[JayUtah]

This should highlight to Tim that detectors on board the same vehicle given different values for the dose...

For detectors placed in different locations on the spacecraft, this is expected when measuring SPE effects.

...the figures are well within tolerances or equipment and sampling errors. There is the issue of using averages too, which ash been discussed at length.

And these are all effects Tim has not eliminated before defaulting to an LEO-mission.

This only serves to illustrate the complexity of the problem, which seems quite wasted on our friend with his broad statements of whataboutery.

The problem is complex.  Tim insists on simplifying it down to his understanding instead of expanding his understanding to encompass the problem.  That's not the "right stuff."