Radiation

[Luke Pemberton]

I am going to timidly toss this out there for your consideration.  That is an exponential scale using exponents in the axis.  It is different than a logarithmic scale.  The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.

Exponential pertains to natural logs, base e, as in 2.718... so exponential graph (if it existed) would be scaled on the major unit according to

e^-4, e^-3, e^-3, e^-1, e⁰, e¹, e²...

Logarithmic graphs pertain to log ₁₀, base 10. The major unit is scaled

10^-4, 10^-3, 10^-2, 10^-1, 10⁰, 10¹, 10²...

As in the CRaTER graph.

[timfinch]

The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.

Which is EXACTLY what that graph is. It just doesn't show the intermediate tick marks, for clarity!

See these two graphs? One generated by CRaTER (on the left) and one created by Luke. Luke's graph only shows the data for detector 1, which is the dark blue line on the CRaTER graph.

See how they are basically exactly the same? How the heights of the peaks is the same on both charts, on the logarithmic scale? The only difference is the labels, and the fact the one has the axis in centigrays per day and one in milligrays per day, so there is a factor of 10 difference. Both are logarithmic plots.



Can you really not see that the difference between 10⁴ and 10³ is bigger than the difference between 10³ and 10²? Or do you think that the gap between 10,000 and 1,000 is the same as the gap between 1,000 and 100? Or between 0.1 and 0.01?

[timfinch]

I am going to timidly toss this out there for your consideration.  That is an exponential scale using exponents in the axis.  It is different than a logarithmic scale.  The deviations on a logarithmic scale are set at logarithmic intervals with the marks getting closer as you as you approach the top.

Exponential pertains to natural logs, base e, as in 2.718... so exponential graph (if it existed) would be scaled on the major unit according to

e^-4, e^-3, e^-3, e^-1, e⁰, e¹, e²...

Logarithmic graphs pertain to log ₁₀, base 10. The major unit is scaled

10^-4, 10^-3, 10^-2, 10^-1, 10⁰, 10¹, 10²...

As in the CRaTER graph.

Definition of exponent
1 : a symbol written above and to the right of a mathematical expression to indicate the operation of raising to a power
2 a : one that expounds or interprets
b : one that champions, practices, or exemplifies

[Rob48]

Would you find it easier to comprehend if we added in the intermediate tick marks on the CRaTER graph, as I have done here between the 10² and 10³ lines? I think you can see why the default is not to do that: because it is very cluttered (even allowing for the thick minimum line width on my screenshot program!)

[Jason Thompson]

Tim, we all know what a log plot looks like. The CraTer graph is a semi-log plot, in that only one axis is log scaled.

But again, I note that you couldn't tell the difference between X^-1 and X x10^-1 when looking at the units from your source document. THat does rather undermine your claims to any mathematical competence, and you haven't addressed anyone who pointed it out.

[Luke Pemberton]

Tim:

The scaling of the major unit is what determines whether a graph is a log plot. The omission of the minor scales which get closer together still means the CRaTER data is a log plot.

How does the major unit on the y-axis in your graph differ to the y-axis in CRaTER graph? The y-axis on the CRaTER graph is scaled in the same way as your example. You failed to read the scale properly.

Not this makes a difference, as you've been shown your initial assumption regarding the CRaTER data is fallacious and you can find that in the data.

[timfinch]

Would you find it easier to comprehend if we added in the intermediate tick marks on the CRaTER graph, as I have done here between the 10² and 10³ lines? I think you can see why the default is not to do that: because it is very cluttered (even allowing for the thick minimum line width on my screenshot program!)

Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question.  You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right.  You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?

[Jason Thompson]

On the subject of the stringent selection criteria Tim refers to, given that we are talking about nuclear subs, how much of 'the cut' is determined by availability of positions versus applicant numbers, how much by technical skill, and how much by stringent background security and medical checks? I ask because if Tim wishes to use them as a bolster to his credibility he is being disingenuous if he implies it's all skills and intelligence that scuppered the rest of them.

As he insisted on using the term 'the right stuff', I'll point out that as it pertains to the Mercury astronauts, hundreds applied, dozens were selected, 7 made the cut. The selection criteria were based on a wide variety of things. Pete Conrad didn't make the first cut because he was flippant in a psych test but was clearly a competent astronaut given his later history.

[Jason Thompson]

Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question.  You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right.  You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?

Oh for the love of...

YES, we all know this, which is why we suggested you go and do this yourself. I have plotted the data on a LOG scale, and get EXACTLY the same curve as the graph on the CraTer web page. EXACTLY.

But again, the shape of the curve does not matter. The NUMBERS tell you what you need to know. You just want to keep going on about this graph because you can't admit to the numbers showing you to be wrong.

[Luke Pemberton]

Definition of exponent

I know, I posted this a while back. You're confusing exponential and exponent when defining whether a graph is a log scale or linear. You keep saying that the CRaTER graph has an exponential scale.

It has a scale expressed using exponents, which are log₁₀ scaled.

Exponent and exponential are different things.

Not that this matters as the CRaTER data falls below your threshold, but you won't look at that data.

[Luke Pemberton]

Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question.  You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right.  You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?

• Plot the data on a linear scale. Plot a line for your threshold on a linear scale. A majority of the the data will be below the line.
• Plot the data on a log graph scale. Plot a line for your on a log scale. A majority of the the data will be below the line.
  
• If you must, plot your data scaled according to base e - an exponential scale if you wish. Plot a line for your on base e log scale. A majority of the the data will be below the line.

None of this matters of course, because Tim won't go and find this out for himself, as his claim has found to be fallacious because he did not read the scale properly.

[timfinch]

On the subject of the stringent selection criteria Tim refers to, given that we are talking about nuclear subs, how much of 'the cut' is determined by availability of positions versus applicant numbers, how much by technical skill, and how much by stringent background security and medical checks? I ask because if Tim wishes to use them as a bolster to his credibility he is being disingenuous if he implies it's all skills and intelligence that scuppered the rest of them.

As he insisted on using the term 'the right stuff', I'll point out that as it pertains to the Mercury astronauts, hundreds applied, dozens were selected, 7 made the cut. The selection criteria were based on a wide variety of things. Pete Conrad didn't make the first cut because he was flippant in a psych test but was clearly a competent astronaut given his later history.

Why don't you apply and see if you have the right stuff?

[timfinch]

Let me play the devils's advocate and ask the question.  You are aware that if you convert a graph to logarithmic the shape of the curve is altered, right.  You do know that you can't simply paste a linear plot onto a logarithmic plot right?

Oh for the love of...

YES, we all know this, which is why we suggested you go and do this yourself. I have plotted the data on a LOG scale, and get EXACTLY the same curve as the graph on the CraTer web page. EXACTLY.

But again, the shape of the curve does not matter. The NUMBERS tell you what you need to know. You just want to keep going on about this graph because you can't admit to the numbers showing you to be wrong.

The before and after curves cannot be the same.  You did something wrong.

[benparry]

ok can I just jump in again. I think it is now pretty obvious that people are not going to agree. I know who I believe. Tim i'm going to be honest. we have conversed for a while now on FB but your making yourself look a bit silly here

[JayUtah]

I ask because if Tim wishes to use them as a bolster to his credibility...

He isn't, and I'm not suggest that he do.  Early in the debate he cited his Navy experience as qualifications for understanding the radiation argument he was making.  After some discussion he withdrew the claim and conceded that Navy training was not applicable, and that he did not have any qualifications in astrophysics or aerospace engineering.  I'm content to let that rest.  My point in bringing it up again was to elicit exactly what I received:  a concession that where expertise is indicated, it needs to appear.  I'm obviously not qualified to do anything aboard a U.S. nuclear submarine except occupy space.  So when I suggest that I'm Tim's equal in that respect, he rightfully bristled.  It's the bristling that made the point.  He hasn't yet grasped that he's trying to do to other professions what I did to his in order to make my point.