Radiation

[Jason Thompson]

When you really think about it.  If you had a dosimeter that recorded at hourly intervals would and average reading be indicative or would you need to multiply the average by 24 to get a daily dose.  I'm just wondering out loud.  Any thoughts in this regard?

When the data are presented as 'cGy/day' don't you think that's already been accounted for? It's very simple: the detector records how much radiaiton hit it in an hour, then multiplied it by 24 so the data represents a daily dose equivalent. That's why the units used are cGy/day.

You seem to be unable to grasp the simple fact that when data are presented using certain units and in certain ways, you can actually use those units to interpret without trying to fudge other calculations to make it what you think it should actually be.

[timfinch]

All the data is lined up numerically from high to low.  If GCR was the dominant component you would expect the curve to be flat

Why? The GCR background is modulated by solar activity and hence is not constant (as is clear from the riginal CraTER graph). If it is not constant the curve cannot be flat.

with a sudden upstart to reflect the SPE component.

Why? SPEs are not events with certain magnitudes, and their directionality will also affect the amount of radiation reaching the detectors. In fact that kind of continuum is exactly what you would expect from something recording radiation reaching a detector in a particular location when the object emitting the radiation is spherical and blasting it off from various points on its surface.

That suggest the SPE component is the major contributor to background radiation.

SPEs are discrete events.

It is also of note that the lowest readings do not suggest a low enough value to have supported a lunar transit.

Virtually the whole left side of that curve falls below 0.2mGy/day.

Didn't you get the memo?  That is uncorrected data, and to properly evaluate it you should average out daily dose rates making it 1/24 the size it currently is.

Averaging out the data won't make it get any higher. Having fewer data points won't alter the magnitude.

It really doesn't matter what value you select as a representative dose foe a lunar transit.

That was literally your whole argument up until you find yourself unable to defend it. Page after apge after page is you insisting that GCR has to be some magical threshold minimum. Now it doesn't matter?

Any dose at all is too high because of VAB an Lunar radiation but let's play this game anyway.

Also wrong for reasons gone into at length on this thread.

It is still the foundation of my argument.  A problem arose when the both the CraTer and MSL/RAD data was rejected as being inapplicable because it was from a different solar cycle.  To get around this obstacle I cited a NASA range of expected GCR dose rates.  There was then an outcry that although this was a valid comparison it was to broad to cover specifics like a 10 day lunar transit.  It was presented that theoretically the apollo could have ventured out in the rain and not gotten wet because the cosmos lined up just right.  I am trying to negotiate this minefield as best I can.  Be patient.  The truth is near.

[Luke Pemberton]

Could you punctuate that response with a value you interpreted from the graph to help me understand your position.  Who knows, I might agree with you.  I am not sure of the relevancy of the graph as it states it is a neutron flux derived determination and I am unfamiliar with the specifics but I don't discount the information.

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. So they say.

Now you tell me, based on everything we have said, why you don't want to use the graph I have presented. What are your objections?

[timfinch]

When you really think about it.  If you had a dosimeter that recorded at hourly intervals would and average reading be indicative or would you need to multiply the average by 24 to get a daily dose.  I'm just wondering out loud.  Any thoughts in this regard?

When the data are presented as 'cGy/day' don't you think that's already been accounted for? It's very simple: the detector records how much radiaiton hit it in an hour, then multiplied it by 24 so the data represents a daily dose equivalent. That's why the units used are cGy/day.

You seem to be unable to grasp the simple fact that when data are presented using certain units and in certain ways, you can actually use those units to interpret without trying to fudge other calculations to make it what you think it should actually be.

I was led to believe this was raw data.  Feel free to make what ever assumptions you want but be reminded that a correlation exist between MSL/RAD data and CraTer Data.  A comparison can be made against the same period of the solar cycle to test for accuracy.

[timfinch]

Could you punctuate that response with a value you interpreted from the graph to help me understand your position.  Who knows, I might agree with you.  I am not sure of the relevancy of the graph as it states it is a neutron flux derived determination and I am unfamiliar with the specifics but I don't discount the information.

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. So they say.

Now you tell me, based on everything we have said, why you don't want to use the graph I have presented. What are your objections?

I want to use the truth in any form I find it.  The chart in question is problematic for me because I am not familiar with the methodologies use to formulate the chart.  The description says it is based upon magnetic and neutron fluxes taken from a model but what does that really mean?  I have no idea.  I can open difficult packages but I prefer the effortless kinds.

[Jason Thompson]

It is still the foundation of my argument.  A problem arose when the both the CraTer and MSL/RAD data was rejected as being inapplicable because it was from a different solar cycle.

ANd the implications of this were ignored by yourself. SOlar cycle 20 was more energetic than 24, therefore the GCR in cycle 20 was expected to be lower. Since the CraTER data repeatedly has been shown to demonstrate lower GCR flux than your magic minimum it is not a showstopper for Apollo.

To get around this obstacle I cited a NASA range of expected GCR dose rates.

No, you cited an article that stated an average rate of 0.24mGy/day and said that number was a minimum level, which you still can't seem to understand is not the same thing at all.

There was then an outcry that although this was a valid comparison it was to broad to cover specifics like a 10 day lunar transit.

Not an outcry, a reasonable point that an average taken over a couple of years cannot be used as any kind of baseline for a two-week mission.

It was presented that theoretically the apollo could have ventured out in the rain and not gotten wet because the cosmos lined up just right.

THis is not miraculous. You keep insisting that it is, but it really isn't. To use the rainfall anaogy, yesterday it rained here. I went out and did not get wet. Why not? Because although the average rainfall during the day was a certain level, I went out when it wasn't raining. That's why you can't use avergaes as minima.

I am trying to negotiate this minefield as best I can.

No, youre trying desperately to avoid admitting you made mistakes, and are shifting the goalposts repeatedly when you can no longer defend your evidence as the smoking gun you presented it as.

I ask you again, what would convince you that you being wrong is actually a reasonable hypothesis?

[Jason Thompson]

I was led to believe this was raw data.

Exactly what led you to believe it? The data are clearly presented as dose rates in cGy/day.

Feel free to make what ever assumptions you want

I am making no assumptions. When the data are presented as daily dose rates it is a sound conclusion that that is what they represent.

[timfinch]

I was led to believe this was raw data.

Exactly what led you to believe it? The data are clearly presented as dose rates in cGy/day.

Feel free to make what ever assumptions you want

I am making no assumptions. When the data are presented as daily dose rates it is a sound conclusion that that is what they represent.

Jason,  The question that assaults my mind relentlessly is this.  Does the raw CraTer data represent discrete snapshots of radiation levels in cislunar space that have to be averaged and multiplied by 24 to arrive at an actual daily dose rate?  Can you help me unravel this tightly wound ball of frustration.  What are your thoughts?

[timfinch]

I am not complaining but it is difficult to keep track of all the responses when so many quotes are reposted.  My resources are taxed by my contemplation of things far above the pay grade of the general populace.

[Luke Pemberton]

I want to use the truth in any form I find it.  The chart in question is problematic for me because I am not familiar with the methodologies use to formulate the chart.  The description says it is based upon magnetic and neutron fluxes taken from a model but what does that really mean? I have no idea.  I can open difficult packages but I prefer the effortless kinds.

... my bold, and herein lies the problem.

The chart tells you everything we have been telling you. The dose would have been lower in 1969 during a corresponding solar maximum. Why? The phi McMurdo reading is based on a ground based neutron monitor. A neutron monitor informs us of GCR flux from secondary neutrons produced by GCR interacting in our upper atmosphere. The higher the neutron reading, the greater the GCR flux.

As you can see, the McMurdo levels are greater in cycle 24 (when the CRaTER data was taken) compared with cycle 20 (Apollo).

So, those CRaTER data that you have been plotting, where swathes of the data are below 0.22. Do you think more of the data would be below 0.22 or less below 0.22?

Further, the entire data set used in the argument shows you that the problem is more complex than you make out. You cannot simply take data from research articles and use it as proof. The detection methods are different for a start. The whole problem is too difficult to use the simple methods you apply. That's really the bottom line to this whole discussion.

However, when you present the argument in the form you expressed, refuse to accept that you cannot compare cycle 20 with 24, that your initial premise is proven wrong by inspection of the data, and then move the goal posts by using average data which you cite as a standard; then it does not make you case look good.

That's not finding the truth in any form you find it. That's deliberately bending the truth to hide the fact you read a graph incorrectly.

[timfinch]

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/MSL-RAD-radiation-environment-measurements.-Guo-Zeitlin/89c373715bc38905ea2cf8c4ae3709d0e626e218/figure/1
Now we can compare the MSL/RAD Data to the CraTer data for a means of determining if the CraTer Data is raw uncorrected data or is in fact as you suspect internally corrected.  What do you think, is it approximately what you expect even in light of the fact that lunar neutron radiation should have raised CraTer data some 30 to 40% above MSL/Rad data?

[Luke Pemberton]

I am not complaining but it is difficult to keep track of all the responses when so many quotes are reposted.

Save us. No, you just cannot keep a coherent story. That is evident. You've been caught out on interpreting the data again. The data is cited in cGy/day, and swathes of the data fall below you threshold. Your initial premise was wrong. That's the end of the argument.

My resources are taxed by my contemplation of things far above the pay grade of the general populace.

... but below the pay grade of the experts that reside here.

[timfinch]

I want to use the truth in any form I find it.  The chart in question is problematic for me because I am not familiar with the methodologies use to formulate the chart.  The description says it is based upon magnetic and neutron fluxes taken from a model but what does that really mean? I have no idea.  I can open difficult packages but I prefer the effortless kinds.

... my bold, and herein lies the problem.

The chart tells you everything we have been telling you. The dose would have been lower in 1969 during a corresponding solar maximum. Why? The phi McMurdo reading is based on a ground based neutron monitor. A neutron monitor informs us of GCR flux from secondary neutrons produced by GCR interacting in our upper atmosphere. The higher the neutron reading, the greater the GCR flux.

As you can see, the McMurdo levels are greater in cycle 24 (when the CRaTER data was taken) compared with cycle 20 (Apollo).

So, those CRaTER data that you have been plotting, where swathes of the data are below 0.22. Do you think more of the data would be below 0.22 or less below 0.22?

Further, the entire data set used in the argument shows you that the problem is more complex than you make out. You cannot simply take data from research articles and use it as proof. The detection methods are different for a start. The whole problem is too difficult to use the simple methods you apply. That's really the bottom line to this whole discussion.

However, when you present the argument in the form you expressed, refuse to accept that you cannot compare cycle 20 with 24, that your initial premise is proven wrong by inspection of the data, and then move the goal posts by using average data which you cite as a standard; then it does not make you case look good.

That's not finding the truth in any form you find it. That's deliberately bending the truth to hide the fact you read a graph incorrectly.

How does that work in your mind?  We used a ground based neutron detector shielded by the VAB to determine cislunar GCR radiation?  You are good with that assessment?  That is the method you would choose above all others?  Why in your data mining did you pass on this more realistic assessment taken from detectors in space?

[Luke Pemberton]

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/MSL-RAD-radiation-environment-measurements.-Guo-Zeitlin/89c373715bc38905ea2cf8c4ae3709d0e626e218/figure/1

Taken during cycle 24 and enroute to Mars. Rejected based on fallacy of equivalence.

[Jason Thompson]

Jason,  The question that assaults my mind relentlessly is this.  Does the raw CraTer data represent discrete snapshots of radiation levels in cislunar space that have to be averaged and multiplied by 24 to arrive at an actual daily dose rate?  Can you help me unravel this tightly wound ball of frustration.  What are your thoughts?

If such a mathematically nonsensical suggestion is gnawing at your mind perhaps you should go and learn a bit about averages. If you take the mean and mutiply it by 24 all you have is the sum.

Look, it's really very simple: the data presented are daily dose rates in cGy/day. That is the information given in the data set, quite clearly in the header, and shown on the axis of the graph. That means every point represents the equivalent daily dose rate at that time. To get the overall average daily dose rate for one day you just average the 24 points for that given day. Over ten days, avergae the 240 points that cover those ten days.

For some reason you seem dead set on trying to interpret the graph as if it's some odd code that needs to be unwound. It really isn't. It is stated quite clearly.