Author Topic: Radiation  (Read 938746 times)

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2010 on: April 14, 2018, 04:24:02 PM »
You have not proven the car has no engine.  At absolute best, you have proved that you don't understand how fuel efficiency works.  I have shown you ticket stubs from attractions across the country with my fingerprints on them.  I have shown you date-stamped pictures of me in front of buildings there, and other people have taken pictures showing me from different angles that show I was there.  You haven't looked at my car.  You have claimed, without knowing anything about my engine, that I haven't stopped for gas often enough.  But you don't know what mileage my car gets or what route I took to get there.
Thanks Gillian - an excellent analogy!

Tim is at the stage of having doubts about the receipts produced for buying fuel on the trip, despite having demonstrated no understanding of how a car engine works, or what the factory fuel efficency is for your model...

Thank you kindly!  To my mind, proving the car had no engine would be more like proving that the capsule couldn't have had enough fuel to get to the Moon and back, which of course would take quite a lot of understanding of engineering to get.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2011 on: April 14, 2018, 04:28:17 PM »
That would be the 'bit of documentation' that is right at the top of the data file you supposedly downloaded some time ago? Super sluething skills there....

It didn't transfer over to the excel sheet and was lost for a minute but I found it.  I did note that it eluded you for the better part of a day. 

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2012 on: April 14, 2018, 04:30:22 PM »
You have not proven the car has no engine.  At absolute best, you have proved that you don't understand how fuel efficiency works.  I have shown you ticket stubs from attractions across the country with my fingerprints on them.  I have shown you date-stamped pictures of me in front of buildings there, and other people have taken pictures showing me from different angles that show I was there.  You haven't looked at my car.  You have claimed, without knowing anything about my engine, that I haven't stopped for gas often enough.  But you don't know what mileage my car gets or what route I took to get there.
Thanks Gillian - an excellent analogy!

Tim is at the stage of having doubts about the receipts produced for buying fuel on the trip, despite having demonstrated no understanding of how a car engine works, or what the factory fuel efficency is for your model...

Thank you kindly!  To my mind, proving the car had no engine would be more like proving that the capsule couldn't have had enough fuel to get to the Moon and back, which of course would take quite a lot of understanding of engineering to get.

Car engine =Rocket engine.... Rocket fuel = Gasoline.  The ASVAB must have been a challenge for you.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2013 on: April 14, 2018, 04:33:03 PM »
Averaging out the Crater Data to a daily average is proving a bit challenging.  Has anyone else accomplished this or does anyone have an algorithm to efficiently accomplish this?

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2014 on: April 14, 2018, 04:40:45 PM »
Averaging out the Crater Data to a daily average is proving a bit challenging.  Has anyone else accomplished this or does anyone have an algorithm to efficiently accomplish this?

Yay! You are starting to get it.

A coin is isolated. Toss a coin a hundred times, or a hundred coins one time, it's the same thing. Dice -- unless they are loaded -- all numbers occur with equal frequency.

But take for an example asteroids. Frequency maps to size; roughly, for every doubling in diameter you get 1/10 the number of them. So you can't strike a number through the center and call that meaningful. If you need to know aggregate weight per volume space then arithmetic average won't cut it.

The Crater data has patterns. It has an SD that is significantly higher than 1.

Offline Valis

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 96
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2015 on: April 14, 2018, 04:46:21 PM »
Averaging out the Crater Data to a daily average is proving a bit challenging.  Has anyone else accomplished this or does anyone have an algorithm to efficiently accomplish this?
That's trivial with any scripting. If you don't know how to do that, take in Excel in another column the sum of the day's hourly values divided by 24 (=SUM(B1:B24)/24 for example), and copy-paste that for every day in steps of 24.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2016 on: April 14, 2018, 04:52:55 PM »
Car engine =Rocket engine.... Rocket fuel = Gasoline.  The ASVAB must have been a challenge for you.

When you can figure out why there's a difference between the relationship between distance and fuel requirements of a land-based vehicle and a space-based vehicle you might begin to understand the point being made...
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2017 on: April 14, 2018, 04:54:19 PM »
It didn't transfer over to the excel sheet and was lost for a minute but I found it.  I did note that it eluded you for the better part of a day. 

Did it? Sure about that are you? I asked you about it. That doesn't mean I didn't already happen to know it was there. Clearly I was wasting my time trying to lead you to see the problem with your original statement about it. Simple answers only from now on....
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2018 on: April 14, 2018, 04:58:39 PM »
It didn't transfer over to the excel sheet and was lost for a minute but I found it.  I did note that it eluded you for the better part of a day. 

Did it? Sure about that are you? I asked you about it. That doesn't mean I didn't already happen to know it was there. Clearly I was wasting my time trying to lead you to see the problem with your original statement about it. Simple answers only from now on....
If you had known you would still be rubbing my nose in it.  What is wrong with intellectual integrity that you shun it so?

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2019 on: April 14, 2018, 05:00:55 PM »
Averaging out the Crater Data to a daily average is proving a bit challenging.  Has anyone else accomplished this or does anyone have an algorithm to efficiently accomplish this?
That's trivial with any scripting. If you don't know how to do that, take in Excel in another column the sum of the day's hourly values divided by 24 (=SUM(B1:B24)/24 for example), and copy-paste that for every day in steps of 24.
There is almost 70 thousand entries and I was actually looking for something a bit more elegant but thank you for the attempt.  If you find this type of repetitive work thrilling then I will patiently wait to savor the fruits of your efforts.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2020 on: April 14, 2018, 05:03:48 PM »
Averaging out the Crater Data to a daily average is proving a bit challenging.  Has anyone else accomplished this or does anyone have an algorithm to efficiently accomplish this?

Yay! You are starting to get it.

A coin is isolated. Toss a coin a hundred times, or a hundred coins one time, it's the same thing. Dice -- unless they are loaded -- all numbers occur with equal frequency.

But take for an example asteroids. Frequency maps to size; roughly, for every doubling in diameter you get 1/10 the number of them. So you can't strike a number through the center and call that meaningful. If you need to know aggregate weight per volume space then arithmetic average won't cut it.

The Crater data has patterns. It has an SD that is significantly higher than 1.
You are trying to complicate a simple matter.  This is simply converting multiple reading taken during a day to a single daily equivalent.  Don't make this difficult.

Offline molesworth

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2021 on: April 14, 2018, 05:50:26 PM »
Car engine =Rocket engine.... Rocket fuel = Gasoline.  The ASVAB must have been a challenge for you.
Just out of interest, I had a look at a practice ASVAB test.  Honestly, there's less of a challenge in that than an average pub quiz...

There is almost 70 thousand entries and I was actually looking for something a bit more elegant but thank you for the attempt.  If you find this type of repetitive work thrilling then I will patiently wait to savor the fruits of your efforts.
Responding in kind - I guess learning to use Excel efficiently is a challenge for you...
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline MBDK

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2022 on: April 14, 2018, 05:55:17 PM »
21.5 hours on the lunar surface
Distance to the moon:  238,900 mi
Length of VAB =37000 miles
Time to the moon: 
Translunar injection engine cutout 1:40:50
Lunar orbit insertion 63:23:27
Elapsed time:  61:43:37
Average rate of travel:  238900 miles/ 61.76666 hours = 3870.92 miles/hour
We know that Apollo 11 entered the TLI at 24200 mph @ 12:22
We know that 2 hrs. and 32 minutes later it had traveled 22000 miles
22000/2.53 hrs. = an average speed of 8695.65 mph.
We know that the VAB is 37000 miles long
22000/37000 = 59.5% of the VAB had been crossed
After 2.53 hours the Apollo 11 was traveling 12,914 feet per second.
12914 ft/sec * 3600sec/hr * 1 mile/5280 ft = 8805 mph
37000-22000 =15000 miles of VAB left to travel @ 8805 mph slowing
15000 miles/8805/miles/hr = 1.7 hrs plus 2.53 hours = 4.23 hours but let’s round it to 4.30 because the Apollo was in constant deceleration throughout the VAB transit.
Now the lowest radiation area in all of the VAB is the blue region which is .0001 rad/sec
.0001 rad/sec * 4.5 hrs * 3600 sec/hr * 10 mgy/rad = 5.22 mgy
5.22 mgy/8days = 0.6525 mgy/day
Now if we assume GCR of .24 mg/day and lunar radiation raises that 35% then 1.35* .24 mg/day = .324 mg/day for 2 days lunar orbit and 1 day on the surface or 3 days.
.324 mg/day * 3 days = .972 mgy
.972 mgy from lunar orbit and lunar landing plus 5.22 mgy from VAB transit plus 5.22 mgy return transit through the VAB = 11.412 mgy
11.412 mgy/8.33 days = 1.369 or as I originally said a full magnitude less than it should be.

https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/apollo11_log/log.htm

It really is amusing how you don't understand much beyond basic physics and math.  The spacecraft will be travelling at its fastest during its transit through the VAB's, after its TLI burn, then slowly decelerating until it reached the Earth/Moon Lagrangian point.  You cannot use the average to determine the speed at any specific point, but I hold no hope that you will get this, as you probably still do not understand how averages work.  So, to be crystal clear, from your own reference contained in the above quote:

"12:22 p.m.- Another firing of the third-stage engine, still attached to the command service module, boosts Apollo 11 out of orbit midway in its second trip around the Earth and onto its lunar trajectory at an initial speed of 24,200 miles an hour."

You also omitted the fact that the radiation levels you used for the blue portion(s) of the VABs is for UNSHIELDED people/detectors, and the lower the energies of the electrons (the lowest of which are the ones seen in the blue portions of the illustration), the higher the attenuation rate of the shielding in the Apollo spacecraft (meaning MUCH lower doses to the astronauts).

So, in essence, you provided more numbers, but indicate you don't understand their significance and you have erroneously assumed factors that are completely off-base for accurate calculations.  Therefor, your entire worksheet above is an immaterial labor.
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields

"Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy." - Lord John Whorfin

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Saturn
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2023 on: April 14, 2018, 06:02:29 PM »
All I know is every attempt to get the information I have discerned out is resisted.

Is it resistance to correct someone that repeatedly insists that 2 + 2 = 5? Are we wrong to not be swayed by your incorrect interpretation of the radiation data?

Quote
My voice is silenced for unfounded an unjust reasons.  The universal claim "He was trolling" seems to be the excuse de Jour.  If disagreeing with the mainstream herd is trolling then I will always be guilty of that crime.

I see two possibilities. Either you're misinterpreting the data and very stubbornly resisting our attempts to show you your error; or you don't really believe what you're saying and you're only saying it to provoke a negative response from us.

Being stubborn in your ignorance is frustrating to us, for sure, but as long as no ill will is intended it won't get you banned. I certainly wouldn't be proud of it if I were you though.

But coming here with the intention to provoke anger or any other negative response is trolling. It will get you banned, and I don't really care if it gets you a merit badge in your little troll club.

This forum has been around for almost 20 years now. We have encountered conspiracy theorists with far more talent than you in that time, and not a single one of them has ever been banned because their claims were too challenging or dangerous for us to allow. In all of that time I have not deleted a single post that was on the topic of the Apollo hoax theory.

So far you have made over 580 posts. If I was as scared of your flawed little theory as you think I am you'd have been gone long ago. Get over yourself. You're here, you've said a whole lot of nothing, and the only take away is that you can't read a graph.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline MBDK

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #2024 on: April 14, 2018, 06:03:21 PM »
You have not proven the car has no engine.

He thinks he has, because he looked in the trunk.
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields

"Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy." - Lord John Whorfin