Radiation

[bknight]

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.

No, each set correspond but the tick marks ARE NOT equally spaced.  Look carefully at the distance between 1 and 2 and then 8 and 9.

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

Yup, precisely, his claim of <0.22 was fallacious and the data shows this to be irrefutable. It's taken a 1050 message thread, and we're still not sure if he accepts that the CRaTER data is a log scale or not.

[Jason Thompson]

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

Tim, there are no 'little tick marks' on the y-axis. The only grduations on the y-axis are the major log scale graduations that go up in powers of 10. The intermediate values are not marked. Look at the zoomed in axis posted earlier. The dots corrspond to the x-axis graduations, not the y-axis.

[timfinch]

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 given different values for the dose, so why should 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 ash 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.

The point that you all continue to gloss over is that GCR is the lowest radiation area the lunar vehicle will see.  It is lower than the SAA, the VAB, Lunar orbit and the Lunar surface.  It probably makes up a third of the total exposure.

[JayUtah]

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

And we've been over this too.  Tick marks that represent orders of magnitude (10, 100, 1000, ...) must be equally spaced in a logarithmic scale.  The minor gradations within them -- those representing linear multiples of values -- are the ones that end up logarithmically spaced in a logarithmic scale, and are frequently omitted for clarity.  When they are omitted, referring to the order-of-magnitude tick labels is what confirms the scale is logarithmic.

You cannot bluff your way past this, Tim.  For those of us who pursued scientific careers, this is literally something we learned in our mid-teens and have used daily for decades.  You're trying to parlay your personal confusion over how to read a logarithmic scale as something you can gaslight your way around.

[Jason Thompson]

The point that you all continue to gloss over is that GCR is the lowest radiation area the lunar vehicle will see.

No-one is glossing over it. THe only issue is your quantification of it. The point you keep glossing over is that loads of it is below what you said was the minimum level.

It probably makes up a third of the total exposure.

How do you arrive at that figure?

[timfinch]

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

Tim, there are no 'little tick marks' on the y-axis. The only grduations on the y-axis are the major log scale graduations that go up in powers of 10. The intermediate values are not marked. Look at the zoomed in axis posted earlier. The dots corrspond to the x-axis graduations, not the y-axis.

Yep, those are the one that would logarithmically spaced on a logarithmic graph.  The fact that they are spaced linearly tells you it is not a logarithmic graph rather it is a linear plot of logarithmic data.  Haven't we spent enough time hashing this out?  The guys are going to get away with the deception if we don't get back to sleuthing.

[Luke Pemberton]

Tim, the major tick marks increase by factors of 10. It's a log plot.

The minor ticks marks that get closer together have been omitted.

You're right, a log plot does sometimes have those minor tick marks that get closer together, but the major tick marks are equally spaced in distance, but not in data interval.

[timfinch]

The point that you all continue to gloss over is that GCR is the lowest radiation area the lunar vehicle will see.

No-one is glossing over it. THe only issue is your quantification of it. The point you keep glossing over is that loads of it is below what you said was the minimum level.

It probably makes up a third of the total exposure.

How do you arrive at that figure?

pick any range you would like from the data set and we will use it as a base line for a lunar transit.  be conservative and I will hold fast to what ever range you select. 

[Jason Thompson]

Yep, those are the one that would logarithmically spaced on a logarithmic graph.

No. Just no. Look at the axis on your own log graph. The equidistant points increase in multiples of 10. Seriously, you just did this and you still can't see it? Look at your own example you posted earier. 0.01 and 0.1 are equally spaced as 0.1 and 1.

If the equidistant numbers go up in multples of 10 that is a log scale. End of discussion.

[Jason Thompson]

pick any range you would like from the data set and we will use it as a base line for a lunar transit.

And exactly how will you do this? Justify your mathematical reasoning.

[timfinch]

Yep, those are the one that would logarithmically spaced on a logarithmic graph.

No. Just no. Look at the axis on your own log graph. The equidistant points increase in multiples of 10. Seriously, you just did this and you still can't see it? Look at your own example you posted earier. 0.01 and 0.1 are equally spaced as 0.1 and 1.

If the equidistant numbers go up in multples of 10 that is a log scale. End of discussion.

[JayUtah]

Yep, those are the one that would logarithmically spaced on a logarithmic graph.

No, that's incorrect.

The fact that they are spaced linearly tells you it is not a logarithmic graph rather it is a linear plot of logarithmic data.

No, that's not correct.  The values attached to the tick marks clearly vary by order of magnitude.  That's how you tell you have a logarithmic scale.

Haven't we spent enough time hashing this out?

Yes.  This is something I could explain in ten minutes to a high school physics class and well over half of them would get it without further discussion.

The guys are going to get away with the deception if we don't back to sleuthing.

Come down off your high horse.  You are patently incompetent at even the most basic techniques in data analysis.  You are not going to "uncover" anything, and most of us are getting tired of you trying to draw us into your fantasy world where you're the hero who unmasked NASA.

[Luke Pemberton]

Tim, I've plotted the average for detectors 1-4. Do you agree that your initial premise that the CRaTER data did not fall below your base threshold is incorrect?

[Jason Thompson]

Yep, those are the one that would logarithmically spaced on a logarithmic graph.

No. Just no. Look at the axis on your own log graph. The equidistant points increase in multiples of 10. Seriously, you just did this and you still can't see it? Look at your own example you posted earier. 0.01 and 0.1 are equally spaced as 0.1 and 1.

If the equidistant numbers go up in multples of 10 that is a log scale. End of discussion.

Tim, look at the spacing between 1 and 10, 10 and 100, 100 and 1000. See how they are equidistant? Ignore the numbers in between. THAT is the key feaure of a log scale. The factors of 10 are equidistant, just as in the CraTer graph.