UH-OH! More bad info for Wunder-Blunder to use!

[AstroBrant]

No sooner does Bob B have to explain to Blunder-boy that the 10-100 MeV info he found was simply not correct, Jarrah has found another gross error to exploit. In his thread on the NVIDIA YT video, he gave sjoeroever a link to this article in American Scientist. 

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2014/5/new-twists-in-earths-radiation-belts/1

Specifically, to this diagram from the last page of the article:

http://www.americanscientist.org/include/popup_fullImage.aspx?key=As2NXOmgWSxPXisiwFCUdVdXsPclONgwZYCQikYmih8OHxRoXuX1Sw==

Notice the AE8MAX figures for earth.
11 MeV electron count of 1E7 per cm^2 per sec??? The interactive table on the Internet doesn't even allow inputs above 7 MeV, as you will just get a page of zeroes. The maximum flux for 7 Mev electrons that I found was 3, not 10 million!

I wrote a letter to the editors at Sigma Xi, who publish the magazine. This is in their current issue, so hopefully Wunder-Blunder will not have much chance to use it before I get a reply. I informed him of same.

I anticipate him posting this new information here just any time now.

[Bob B.]

Clearly a misprint.  That should be 1 MeV, as shown in the Jupiter and Saturn diagrams.

(ETA) On second thought, I'm not entirely sure what energy is represented by that diagram, though I'm pretty certain it's not more than 1 MeV.

[AstroBrant]

Clearly a misprint.  That should be 1 MeV, as shown in the Jupiter and Saturn diagrams.

That's what I thought, too, so I checked the table. (I used 1.1). The flux figures for that are about 10 times those in the diagram. Still, that's a lot closer.

[Bob B.]

The following looks almost identical to the referenced diagram.



Note that the above is for >1 MeV electrons.  It comes from the same page from which JW got his 10-100 MeV claim.

[AstroBrant]

Bob,
Yes, using the AE8MAX table again, I input energy levels of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Adding those values for earth radii = 3.0, (which was the largest), I get a flux total of about 4.39E7. That seems consistent with the diagram. (As opposed to an error factor of 3 million!)

I noticed that the diagram shows the most intense region farther out, like 4 earth radii, but that's on the tail side. So I suppose those values are averaged out for all the way around the earth where the belts compress more and more toward the planet on the sun side.

No word yet from Sigma Xi. I really do expect them to address this.

My last couple of comments on the NVIDIA/JW thread plus my three re-posts seem to have killed the thread! No comments have been posted since I did them 12 hours ago.

[Bob B.]

Bob,
Yes, using the AE8MAX table again, I input energy levels of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Adding those values for earth radii = 3.0, (which was the largest), I get a flux total of about 4.39E7. That seems consistent with the diagram. (As opposed to an error factor of 3 million!)

You don't need to add up the values.  When you input into AE8MAX an energy of 1, you get the flux for all electrons with energies >=1 MeV.  This is the flux that is depicted in the diagram.  By adding the fluxes together, you are just doubling up, tripling up, etc. on the higher energy electrons.

If you notice in the diagram there is a 10⁶ contour line that runs through the dark red area.  This line crosses the geomagnetic equator (0 on the vertical axis) at two points, approximately L = 3 and 6 earth radii.  If we look up the AE8MAX flux for 1 MeV at those two points we get 1.079E+6 and 9.978E+5, which matches the contour line.  (Note that B/B_o=1 for the geomagnetic equator.)

[AstroBrant]

You don't need to add up the values.  When you input into AE8MAX an energy of 1, you get the flux for all electrons with energies >=1 MeV.  This is the flux that is depicted in the diagram.  By adding the fluxes together, you are just doubling up, tripling up, etc. on the higher energy electrons.

Okay, thanks. I guess I should have read the directions better.

If you notice in the diagram there is a 10⁶ contour line that runs through the dark red area.  This line crosses the geomagnetic equator (0 on the vertical axis) at two points, approximately L = 3 and 6 earth radii.  If we look up the AE8MAX flux for 1 MeV at those two points we get 1.079E+6 and 9.978E+5, which matches the contour line.  (Note that B/B_o=1 for the geomagnetic equator.)

Thanks again. I'll check.

Still no word from Sigma Xi. I'll contact them again in a couple of days.

[Bob B.]

Okay, thanks. I guess I should have read the directions better.

There are some things about AE-8/AP-8 that are not particularly intuitive, particularly in regard to the coordinates.  I started a thread about it last month:

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=644.0

I summarized the main points in the following article; just scroll down to the part titled "AE-8/AP-8 Radiation Belt Models".

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Thanks again. I'll check.

Just to be clear, the contour line that I was talking about is in the diagram that I posted in Reply #3.   

Still no word from Sigma Xi. I'll contact them again in a couple of days.

I hope they fix it because it's obviously an error.

[JayUtah]

I hope they fix it because it's obviously an error.

This is why we have peer review.  No one's infallible.  No one's immune from error.

[Luke Pemberton]

I hope they fix it because it's obviously an error.

This is why we have peer review.  No one's infallible.  No one's immune from error.

I concur, no one is immune from error. What I find distasteful is that Jarrah seizes upon the errors made during the Apollo project to accuse NASA of murdering Chaffee, White and Grissom, yet has spent most of his time whining when his numerous errors have been identified.

Jarrah will avoid all the main criticisms of his ridiculous computations as he makes hay out of these figures. I'm sure he will accuse us of trying to change the data now that he has finally 'proven' the hoax with his 'calculations.'

I'll remind him now about his error with the Vegas debacle and the 1.5 x 0.5 = 1.0 calculation. That was more than error as he managed to shoot himself and Percy in the foot, especially when he revealed the logical fallacy of his argument with ham-fisted attempts at a correction.

I'm sure he won't apply to the same grace that he demands when he's in error (which is all the time). Jarrah is soon quick to jump over anyone that he deems to apply double standards, but will apply any 'the dog ate my homework' excuse when he's made accountable for the denigration of 400 000+ people.

As a note, I wonder if he'll ask any of the authors of the articles he cites if they think Apollo was hoaxed. He will still not apply that acid test.

[Dr.Acula]

1,5 x 0,5 = 1 ? 

How bad is this? It seems, I've missed some comedy. Even pupils in third class (German school, don't know enough about Australian or US schoolsystem) can easily calculate this.

[Bob B.]

As a note, I wonder if he'll ask any of the authors of the articles he cites if they think Apollo was hoaxed. He will still not apply that acid test.

I know he has misrepresented my words and pasted his own interpretation to it.  Of course he never bothered to ask me for a clarification.  If I were to post a correction on YouTube he'd probably argue with me over the meaning of my own words.

[Bob B.]

1,5 x 0,5 = 1 ? 

How bad is this? It seems, I've missed some comedy. Even pupils in third class (German school, don't know enough about Australian or US schoolsystem) can easily calculate this.

I believe this stems from a claim about the manipulation of the film speed.  My understanding is that he slowed down a video clip by 50% and then claimed that to return to the original speed you must add 50% to the slowed-down video.  Of course you have to double the slowed-down video to return to the original speed.

[Dr.Acula]

1,5 x 0,5 = 1 ? 

How bad is this? It seems, I've missed some comedy. Even pupils in third class (German school, don't know enough about Australian or US schoolsystem) can easily calculate this.

I believe this stems from a claim about the manipulation of the film speed.  My understanding is that he slowed down a video clip by 50% and then claimed that to return to the original speed you must add 50% to the slowed-down video.  Of course you have to double the slowed-down video to return to the original speed.

Ah, I see, the good old "50-%-slow-down"-argument is still going around again.. and again.. and again 

[Bob B.]

Ah, I see, the good old "50-%-slow-down"-argument is still going around again.. and again.. and again 

An oldie but a goodie.