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

[JayUtah]

He clearly does not have a fundamental knowledge of calculus,

I'd venture to say he doesn't have a fundamental understanding of the kinds problems calculus was invented to solve, and this is one of them.  "Understanding the math" has two components.  First is the knowledge of mathematical techniques and the skill to apply them.  Second, but more important, is the ability to think through problems mathematically and understand at an abstract level the relationships among quantities.

Jarrah lacks the latter almost entirely.  He's trying to find a way to shoehorn the actual relationships into the math he already knows and can already work.  Now lots of people don't get math.  But it wouldn't be so bad in his case if he didn't attribute the difference between what he gets and the real answers by saying everyone else is a fraud.

...it is an absolute howler.

It was a howler the last time he didn't realize an integration was in order.  A conscientious person would walk away from that experience thinking, "Gee, maybe I should take a calculus class."  Jarrah walked away claiming everyone was out to get him.

I said it years ago, he does more damage to the hoax theory with his ham-fisted attempts at math and physics. He portrays a veneer of expertise and fails miserably at each attempt when playing the sage.

That's why he typically stays in the walled garden.  He can pretend to be a great physicist, and no one around him knows any better.

[Bob B.]

The Blunder hasn't a clue what he's doing and he's too pigheaded to accept correction.  The number of particles decreases dramatically with increasing energy.  For example, I picked a random spot along the outbound trajectory of Apollo 11 - a distance of 3 earth radii, where the belts are about their most intense.  At this location the distribution of electrons by energy range looks like this:

0.1 - 0.5 MeV = 82.8%
0.5 - 1 MeV = 11.9%
1 - 2 MeV = 4.7%
2 - 3 MeV = 0.5%
3 - 4 MeV = 0.1%
4+ MeV = <0.01%

Dividing the integral energy flux by the integral particle flux gives the real average energy.  If we do this for all electrons >=0.1 MeV along the path of Apollo 11, we get an average of about 0.3 MeV.  This low average is because the belts are dominated by low energy particles.

[Bob B.]

I'd venture to say he doesn't have a fundamental understanding of the kinds problems calculus was invented to solve, and this is one of them.  "Understanding the math" has two components.  First is the knowledge of mathematical techniques and the skill to apply them.  Second, but more important, is the ability to think through problems mathematically and understand at an abstract level the relationships among quantities.

Jarrah lacks the latter almost entirely.  He's trying to find a way to shoehorn the actual relationships into the math he already knows and can already work.  Now lots of people don't get math.  But it wouldn't be so bad in his case if he didn't attribute the difference between what he gets and the real answers by saying everyone else is a fraud.

Well said.  I was trying to say something similar early but you did a better job of it.

[Luke Pemberton]

At this location the distribution of electrons by energy range looks like this:

0.1 - 0.5 MeV = 82.8%
0.5 - 1 MeV = 11.9%
1 - 2 MeV = 4.7%
2 - 3 MeV = 0.5%
3 - 4 MeV = 0.1%
4+ MeV = <0.01%

Dividing the integral energy flux by the integral particle flux gives the real average energy.  If we do this for all electrons >=0.1 MeV along the path of Apollo 11, we get an average of about 0.3 MeV.  This low average is because the belts are dominated by low energy particles.

Hopefully this will highlight to Jarrah why his method is incorrect, and simply taking an average is hopelessly wrong.
Jarrah now has a problem in as much as he's relatively close to putting numbers into his model and arriving at a figure that will show him that the Apollo astronauts could indeed traverse the belts. In his usual pigheaded manner he's found some juicy looking data to make his point, but the data contains a typographic error. Had he cross referenced the literature to make sure the figures were correct, something any good scientist would do as matter of course, he would not be in this pickle.

I saw the MAARBLE website a long time ago, and immediately dismissed the numbers as wrong. I knew they were in error as electrons at 100 MeV have some very interesting properties indeed. Electrons at such energies have de Broglie wavelengths that are on the par with the diameter of atomic nuclei. If Jarrah had any understanding of physics he would immediately know that electron energies of such magnitude would be a ridiculous in context of the VABs.

The higher energy electrons in the VABs are accelerated by a mechanism known as whistler mode chorus waves. A large proportion of the research that I have read cites accelerations up to a few MeV, not the 100 MeV Jarrah claims. If he knew his material and had expertise in the VABs he would have known this too. Here is an article on the phenomenon.

Interestingly the term 1 million volts is used, as with the MAARBLE website where volts were interchanged for MeV. It appears that this interchange of terms is used elsewhere. In the article I have linked 1 MeV is included in the parentheses.

In any case, Jarrah is now actually close to proving wrong the very thing he has believed for 10 years. This makes this latest fiasco even funnier than his usual offerings.

ETA: This article is well worth a read, and discusses how electrons are accelerated to higher energy.

http://www.fis.unical.it/files/fl161/9550journalclub.pdf

[theteacher]

I'd venture to say he doesn't have a fundamental understanding of the kinds problems calculus was invented to solve, and this is one of them.  "Understanding the math" has two components.  First is the knowledge of mathematical techniques and the skill to apply them.  Second, but more important, is the ability to think through problems mathematically and understand at an abstract level the relationships among quantities.

Jarrah lacks the latter almost entirely.  He's trying to find a way to shoehorn the actual relationships into the math he already knows and can already work.  Now lots of people don't get math.  But it wouldn't be so bad in his case if he didn't attribute the difference between what he gets and the real answers by saying everyone else is a fraud.

Well said.  I was trying to say something similar early but you did a better job of it.

Maybe it would be helpful then to produce one or more graphs plotting flux against energy for various intensities. Thus it would be visually (more) obvious, why the "average" in theese cases is a weighted value, that must be calculated by integration rather than adding the max and the min and dividing by 2? A job for a Guru? :-)

[Bob B.]

Maybe it would be helpful then to produce one or more graphs plotting flux against energy for various intensities. Thus it would be visually (more) obvious, why the "average" in these cases is a weighted value, that must be calculated by integration rather than adding the max and the min and dividing by 2? A job for a Guru? :-)

I did that in my review of Jarrah video, but I plotted it on a logarithmic scale so it lost it's effectiveness in illustrating the point you're making.



If we simply plot number of electrons versus energy it looks like this:

[theteacher]

I did that in my review of Jarrah video, ...

I may have missed that.

If we simply plot number of electrons versus energy it looks like this:

Exactly what I was aiming at. Now even the mathematically challenged person can see intuitively, that the average is at most less than one and probably less as one half.

[HeadLikeARock]

Maybe it would be helpful then to produce one or more graphs plotting flux against energy for various intensities. Thus it would be visually (more) obvious, why the "average" in these cases is a weighted value, that must be calculated by integration rather than adding the max and the min and dividing by 2? A job for a Guru? :-)

I did that in my review of Jarrah video, but I plotted it on a logarithmic scale so it lost it's effectiveness in illustrating the point you're making.
 <snip>

Nice illustration with the graphics there Bob. I've been trying to figure out how to physically represent the difference between the correct approach to marrying up the flux and energy level, and Jarrah's. At first I though it was like this. Correct method in orange. Jarrah's method in red (he added up 10 MeV, 7 MeV, and 55 MeV electrons, with fluxes of up to 2 x 10^6.)



Or he may have done this.



But it's late, and I'm tired, and Homeland is about to start.

[Bob B.]

He did the former.  You've show with your illustration what I tried to describe with an analogy.  If you haven't read it, the analogy goes like this...

Let say we have a pile of coins that includes 100 pennies (1¢), 50 nickels (5¢), 20 dimes (10¢), 5 quarters (25¢), and 1 half-dollar (50¢). Each coin represents an electron, where the number of coins is analogous to particle flux and their denomination is analogous to energy. The amount of money is analogous to the energy flux (particle flux × energy), the total of which is

(100 × 0.01) + (50 × 0.05) + (20 × 0.10) + (5 × 0.25) + (1 × 0.50) = $7.25

The only electrons that are of interest to White are those that penetrate the shielding, which he believes are those >6.1 MeV. This is apparently why he focuses his upcoming discussion on 7 and 10 MeV electrons. Let's say these are represented by the quarters and half-dollar in our pile of coins (i.e. coins ≥25¢). The smaller coins represent the electrons that are blocked by the shielding. To compute the dose, he must know the energy flux of >6.1 MeV electrons, that is, the value of the quarters and half-dollar,

(5 × 0.25) + (1 × 0.50) = $1.75

The above is all that should matter to White. The problem it that White has no idea how many quarters and half-dollars there are—all he knows is that there's 176 coins in the pile (i.e. the ≥0.5 MeV electron flux). He doesn't have the data to do what he wants to do, or what he should do. He says he wants to calculate the value of the half-dollars (i.e. 10 MeV electrons), but instead of using the correct quantity of half-dollars (which he doesn't know) he inexplicably uses the number of coins ≥1¢,

176 × 0.50 = $88.00

He then does the same thing for the quarters,

176 × 0.25 = $44.00

He next decides to average these values,

(88.00 + 44.00) / 2 = $66.00

Not content with these bogus numbers, White now claims there are dollars in the pile and computes,

176 × 1.00 = $176.00

These computed values—$44.00, $66.00, $88.00 and $176.00—have nothing whatsoever to do with the number White should have actually computed—$1.75. In fact, White's numbers are completely fabricated nonsense that have nothing to do with anything. Although this is just an analogy, the logic behind White's real computations is exactly as demonstrated above.

(ETA) I see that you have indeed read the analogy because you commented on it in the other thread.

[AstroBrant]

I'll address this without using quotes, as a number of comments have touched on the issue, that being the ability to understand math.

Some of you have stated that JW should be able to understand this or that. I'm not at all sure. I've never seen any indication of it. Notice the math Jarrah uses in his radiation video. His math will seem advanced to most of his followers because of the impressive looking units, scientific notation, and use of equations. But he really does nothing more sophisticated than adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing.

His error of thinking he can average 10 and 100 MeV electrons without considering the relative flux values indicates his level of mathematical thinking. I can't be certain he even understands Bob's coin analogy.

It has been mentioned that graphs might help him to picture relationships. Again, I'm not so sure, especially if one of the scales has to be logarithmic in order to get all the data in the graph. Bob's "Average Number of Electrons" graph is one I think he might understand, though. It's a pretty revealing picture. Still, he might be puzzled as to why the graph after about 2.5 MeV seems to read zero.

[AstroBrant]

I received an inquiry from the managing editor of American Scientist today. She said they had received a "strange call" from someone in Australia whose "name was indistinct," inquiring about the revised figure in the diagram. She asked me if I knew who it might have been. I told her I was certain it must have been Jarrah White, and then gave a brief description of who he was. She gave me no further information about the conversation.

I guess this now confirms that he has gotten the news.

(I also confessed that I am not a "Dr.") 

[Glom]

So he just took the middle of a range as his "average"?

[Luke Pemberton]

I've been trying to figure out how to physically represent the difference between the correct approach to marrying up the flux and energy level...

Excellent depictions that complement Bob's coin analogy and graphs. I suggest that with Bob's coin analogy and HLAR's illustrations it would be good to hold the thread at this point. Both examples offer a beautiful insight into Jarrah's mathematical ineptitude, and to lose these contributions among more posts would be a shame. They provide a wonderful bookend to the discussion, and I'd like to preserve them for all to see.

[Bob B.]

I have just one more image to post.  HeadLikeARock's graphic nicely illustrates Jarrah's error; however, since it uses a logarithmic vertical scale, the image doesn't fully convey the magnitude of the mistake.  The following is a similar graphic using an arithmetic scale.  The colored areas signify the energy flux, i.e. the particle flux times the particle energy.  The tiny blue area to the left is the correct answer while the huge red area is Jarrah's computation.


 

[Luke Pemberton]

I have just one more image to post.

Perfect, absolutely perfect. This really illustrates that he does not understand the maths required to make an integrated dose calculation. The fact that his maths shows the area bounded by a rectangle should hopefully raise alarm bells. After all these years of trying to get him to work out the problem he's finally had an attempt and shown he does not understand. I think we all owe you a beer Bob.