Radiation

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

No, we rejected your analysis of the CRaTER data and simultaneously want to know how you could extrapolate it to a different solar cycle with a higher activity. We were testing your hypothesis on two separate fronts.

One is  point of your initial claim of less than 0.22 mGr/day, the other is that your data would be lower at a time of higher solar activity.

I provide data from solar cycle 20 and now you won't shut up about the CraTer data.

...because the data for cycle 20 is an average figure, so now we are pointing back to the CRaTER data to demonstrate that an average can be made up of data points with natural variation, such as the CRaTER data, and therefore a dose over a short time slot can be higher or lower than the average. Therefore, the Apollo 11 dose could be lower than the average you cite.

[benparry]

because you brought this theory here. if you don't do something that everybody else has done which will take you 5 minutes it doesn't look good does it

[Jason Thompson]

Did you not read my response as to why not?  It would be disregarded because it represents a different solar cycle.  They would simply claim that it has no bearing on 1969.

Stop playing games. You know damn well that is not true. You have been asked repeatedly why you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the data, in simple black and white, contradicts your claim that the GCR rate is never lower than 0.22uGy/day. It's there, and you can see it and plot the graph that you insisted shows it is always above that value.

You refuse because you would have to admit that all that obfuscation is just your way of refusing to acknowledge your error.

ANd the relevance to cycle 20 has also been explained. Cycle 20 was a more active solar cycle, therefor the GCR flux would be even lower than in cycle 24, where it already falls below your stated minimum GCR levels.

[Luke Pemberton]

Ben, the website graphs the data for you.  You select the parameters and it produces the graph.  Why is it necessary in your mind to re-invent the wheel when the shelves are stocked with wheels?  http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&s

Look at the actual data.

[Jason Thompson]

Tim, do you or do you not acknowledge that the CraTer data shows recorded dose rates lower than 0.02cGy/day for periods well in excess of any single Apollo lunar mission duration?

[benparry]

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

[Rob48]

My bad.  In my unschooled approach I was under the impression the units were in tenths of an hour.  that negative one exponent through me off.  What is your take on the negative one exponent?

There is no "take" to have. "h^-1" means 1/h, i.e. "per hour", as in the common units km h^-1 (kilometres per hour), or m s^-1 (metres per second), or even just s^-1 (per second, better known as hertz).

I don't see how you could possibly interpret "h^-1" as indicating "tenths of an hour".

Honestly, if you get thrown by simple everyday unit conventions, then what are the chances that your calculations are correct and the rest of the world's are wrong?

[timfinch]

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?

[nomuse]

What is your take on the negative one exponent?

Our take is that it is the standard mathematical alternative way of writing 'per hour' SImple maths, Tim. 1uGyhr^-1 = 1uGy/hr.

Well, at least he understands what 10^3 means.

 

[Jason Thompson]

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?

Where exactly is NASA's stated position that the minimum was 0.2mGy/day for the Apollo missions?

[timfinch]

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?

Where exactly is NASA's stated position that the minimum was 0.2mGy/day for the Apollo missions?

Couldn't you scroll back through the thread?  I posted it numerous times.

[Jason Thompson]

SHouldn't be hard to repost it again then, should it? I am not trawling 60 pages for the answer to a question you could provide now.

[Rob48]

Ben, the website graphs the data for you.  You select the parameters and it produces the graph.  Why is it necessary in your mind to re-invent the wheel when the shelves are stocked with wheels?  http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/products.php?numplots=1&durationtype=span&ProductG111=doserates&SepGcrAllType111=all&InvCombG111=doserates_combined&DaysRangeG111=Alldays&syncdate=yes&StartEndGroup111=end&doy111=085&yeargroup111=2017&s

Yes, it plots the graph for you. Can you not see that the level is below 0.2 mGy/day (i.e. 2 x 10^-2 cGy/day on the scale) for the majority of the time?



Do you understand how the logarithmic scale on the vertical axis works? 2 x 10^-2 will be log2/log10, or just over 30%, of the way up from 10^-2 to 10^-1.

[Bryanpoprobson]

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?

Where exactly is NASA's stated position that the minimum was 0.2mGy/day for the Apollo missions?

Couldn't you scroll back through the thread?  I posted it numerous times.

No, you quoted it, you have NEVER referenced it.

[Jason Thompson]

Do you understand how the logarithmic scale on the vertical axis works? 2 x 10^-2 will be log2/log10, or just over 30%, of the way up from 10^-2 to 10^-1.

No, he doesn't. Which is why I keep suggesting he looks at the numbers and even plays with them himself in Excel, but he won't. His whole argument is that is not a log scale in the accepted sense.