Magnetosphere in Sci and Sci Fi
BURT
deflecting dangerous rays.
What more does magnetism do that is important to mankind?
It is curves of force.
What is magnetic weight?
Mitch Raemsch -- Magnetic Acceleration --
nonsense
> The the magnetosphere of the earth acts as a force field shield
> deflecting dangerous rays.
Tell us about cosmic rays.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Solar wind.
Koobee Wublee
> BURT wrote:
> > The magnetosphere of the earth acts as a force field shield
> > deflecting dangerous rays.
>
> Tell us about cosmic rays.
Interstellar space is postulated to have a large quantity of very high-
energy particles known as cosmic rays. The solar wind form our sun
reduces the number of cosmic rays to a much lower level. The earth's
magnetic field creates these Van Allen Belts which shields and traps
the solar wind and other harmful particles. Below the Van Allen
Belts, the radiation is about 10 RADs per year. It is not lethal but
considered health risk. The earth's atmosphere with the ionosphere
further attenuates the radiation level down to such benign level as
seen on the surface of the earth.
How did the Apollo astronauts survive the radiation form solar wind
and cosmic rays without the protected environment of the Van Allen
Belts? They probably will survive with minimal shielding in the
command module for a week and a half, but coming back on earth, they
should be very ill and eventually demise in a few months.
nonsense
> On Dec 17, 9:12 pm, nonsense wrote:
>
>>BURT wrote:
>
>
>>>The magnetosphere of the earth acts as a force field shield
>>>deflecting dangerous rays.
>>
>>Tell us about cosmic rays.
>
>
> Interstellar space is postulated to have a large quantity of very high-
> energy particles known as cosmic rays. The solar wind form our sun
> reduces the number of cosmic rays to a much lower level. The earth's
> magnetic field creates these Van Allen Belts which shields and traps
> the solar wind and other harmful particles. Below the Van Allen
> Belts, the radiation is about 10 RADs per year. It is not lethal but
> considered health risk. The earth's atmosphere with the ionosphere
> further attenuates the radiation level down to such benign level as
> seen on the surface of the earth.
I'm waiting to hear about the cosmic rays that pass through
the earth, coming up to pass through your body from the
feet up, and how "harmless" those are. There's a school
of thought holding that those are to some extent responsible
for genetic mutations.
snip
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> The the magnetosphere of the earth acts as a force field shield
> deflecting dangerous rays.
> What more does magnetism do that is important to mankind?
It tells you which way north is.
It spins the blenders which make all of those mixed drinks that many of
the regulars of these newsgroups undoubtedly consume.
And, most significantly, it sticks notes and the drawings of 6 year-olds
to the front of your refrigerator.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.
BURT
> BURT wrote:
>
> > The the magnetosphere of the earth acts as a force field shield
> > deflecting dangerous rays.
> > What more does magnetism do that is important to mankind?
>
> It tells you which way north is.
>
> It spins the blenders which make all of those mixed drinks that many of
> the regulars of these newsgroups undoubtedly consume.
>
> And, most significantly, it sticks notes and the drawings of 6 year-olds
> to the front of your refrigerator.
Cool Paul!
> --
> Paul Hovnanian p...@hovnanian.com
nonsense
> BURT wrote:
>
>>The the magnetosphere of the earth acts as a force field shield
>>deflecting dangerous rays.
>>What more does magnetism do that is important to mankind?
>
>
> It tells you which way north is.
>
> It spins the blenders which make all of those mixed drinks that many of
> the regulars of these newsgroups undoubtedly consume.
I don't think very many engage in the niceties;
the seem to prefer straight up right out of the
bottle.
> And, most significantly, it sticks notes and the drawings of 6 year-olds
> to the front of your refrigerator.
That's where I keep my bills, in calendar order. I've
given some thought to drawing the matrix with indelible
marker, but the numbers jump around from month to
month.
foolsrushin.
> On Dec 19, 10:52 am, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@seanet.com> wrote:
> > BURT wrote:
> > > The the magnetosphere of the earth acts as a force field shield
> > > deflecting dangerous rays.
> > > What more does magnetism do that is important to mankind?
> > It tells you which way north is.
> > It spins the blenders which make all of those mixed drinks that many of
> > the regulars of these newsgroups undoubtedly consume.
> > And, most significantly, it sticks notes and the drawings of 6 year-olds
> > to the front of your refrigerator.
> Cool Paul!
not hurt too much! Ironically, it addresses the wiitiest mind here,
even possibly, anywhere. Like Groucho, I am suspicious. Get out 'Night
in Casablanca' DVD.
> > Paul Hovnanian p...@hovnanian.com
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.
'foolsrushin.'
PS - Now, Procrastes ... .
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 9:12 pm, nonsense wrote:
>>
>>>BURT wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The magnetosphere of the earth acts as a force field shield
>>>>deflecting dangerous rays.
>>>
>>>Tell us about cosmic rays.
>>
>>
>> Interstellar space is postulated to have a large quantity of very high-
>> energy particles known as cosmic rays. The solar wind form our sun
>> reduces the number of cosmic rays to a much lower level. The earth's
>> magnetic field creates these Van Allen Belts which shields and traps
>> the solar wind and other harmful particles. Below the Van Allen
>> Belts, the radiation is about 10 RADs per year. It is not lethal but
>> considered health risk. The earth's atmosphere with the ionosphere
>> further attenuates the radiation level down to such benign level as
>> seen on the surface of the earth.
>
Koobee Wublee is fantastically stupid and is sharing his ignorance on
yet another subject. Do not listen to him.
>I'm waiting to hear about the cosmic rays that pass through
>the earth, coming up to pass through your body from the
>feet up, and how "harmless" those are. There's a school
>of thought holding that those are to some extent responsible
>for genetic mutations.
The only radiation flux that is passing through the Earth is the
neutrino flux from the sun. Given that the canonical description of a
neutrino's interaction with matter is that it can traverse a light
year of lead with a 50% chance of interacting, it is reasonably safe
to say that neutrinos don't do anything significant to us even on
large time scales.
On the other hand, there is a significant cosmic ray flux with
energies than span the MeV to 10^21 eV range. This flux does not pass
through the whole of the planet, but it does pass through the
atmosphere and serves as a large portion of the planetary radiation
background.
This doesn't touch on the solar wind particles that get sucked down
into the atmosphere by the nonlinearities of the magnetic field, but
those are reasonably restricted to the polar regions.
The school of thought that cosmic radiation may be tinkering with our
genetic structure through mutations is not unreasonable.
>
>snip
Eric Gisse
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 17, 9:12 pm, nonsense wrote:
>> BURT wrote:
>
>> > The magnetosphere of the earth acts as a force field shield
>> > deflecting dangerous rays.
>>
>> Tell us about cosmic rays.
>
>Interstellar space is postulated to have a large quantity of very high-
>energy particles known as cosmic rays. The solar wind form our sun
>reduces the number of cosmic rays to a much lower level.
No.
The solar wind only significantly modulates cosmic rays whose energies
are in the MeV range. In the GeV range, the modulation decreases to
~20% and continues to drop as energy increases.
Do keep in mind that the MeV and GeV protons are a very small part of
the overall cosmic ray flux.
>The earth's
>magnetic field creates these Van Allen Belts which shields and traps
>the solar wind and other harmful particles. Below the Van Allen
>Belts, the radiation is about 10 RADs per year. It is not lethal but
>considered health risk. The earth's atmosphere with the ionosphere
>further attenuates the radiation level down to such benign level as
>seen on the surface of the earth.
Not even fucking close.
What amazes me is your constant almost-but-not-quite understanding of
physics. You don't know any of the details, nor can you explain what
is actually going on, but you almost always know enough of the words
to somewhat piece together what is going on.
It's too bad you are too arrogant to actually pick up a book to fill
in the details. Or maybe you tried and simply couldn't hack the math.
The magnetic field of the Earth is what sheilds the planet from the
solar wind. Nothing else. Most certainly not the Van Allen belts.
The Van Allen belts are an artifact of the planetary magnetic field
being imbedded in the solar wind. There is a mechanism that allows the
particles to make the transition from the far magnetotail into the
current sheet formed by the opposing magnetic field lines. From there,
another mechanism has a chance of jetting some plasma from the area in
which it collects up towards the planet. There, the plasma is kept in
what is known as the Van Allen belts.
Let's see if you learned anything. I can answer these - can you?
#1: Can you explain what the mechanism allows the particles traveling
nearly parallel to the field lines with temperatures in the range of a
million degrees Kelvin to jump across the magnetopause and start
collecting at the current sheet?
#2: Why is there a current sheet?
#3: Why is the particle population trapped? No, the answer is NOT
"they are in orbit". This is true, but it is not the whole answer.
>
>How did the Apollo astronauts survive the radiation form solar wind
>and cosmic rays without the protected environment of the Van Allen
>Belts? They probably will survive with minimal shielding in the
>command module for a week and a half, but coming back on earth, they
>should be very ill and eventually demise in a few months.
>
Oh that's right, I forgot you are an Apollo denier.
The Van Allen belt extends out only a few Earth radii. The Apollo
craft passed through it in short order. What's 10 rad/yr over a week?
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
You draw the calendar and start day 1 at the upper left hand of the
matrix. Move the weekday names (on magnetic labels to the top of each
column as required each month).
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is like a buffet. Its not very good but there's plenty of it.
Koobee Wublee
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> >Interstellar space is postulated to have a large quantity of very high-
> >energy particles known as cosmic rays. The solar wind form our sun
> >reduces the number of cosmic rays to a much lower level.
>
> No.
Yes.
> The solar wind only significantly modulates cosmic rays whose energies
> are in the MeV range. In the GeV range, the modulation decreases to
> ~20% and continues to drop as energy increases.
That is a good one. The solar wind modulates the cosmic rays.
> Do keep in mind that the MeV and GeV protons are a very small part of
> the overall cosmic ray flux.
<shrug>
> >The earth's
> >magnetic field creates these Van Allen Belts which shields and traps
> >the solar wind and other harmful particles. Below the Van Allen
> >Belts, the radiation is about 10 RADs per year. It is not lethal but
> >considered health risk. The earth's atmosphere with the ionosphere
> >further attenuates the radiation level down to such benign level as
> >seen on the surface of the earth.
>
> Not even fucking close.
>
> What amazes me is your constant almost-but-not-quite understanding of
> physics. You don't know any of the details, nor can you explain what
> is actually going on, but you almost always know enough of the words
> to somewhat piece together what is going on.
>
> It's too bad you are too arrogant to actually pick up a book to fill
> in the details. Or maybe you tried and simply couldn't hack the math.
>
> The magnetic field of the Earth is what sheilds the planet from the
> solar wind. Nothing else. Most certainly not the Van Allen belts.
Well, the Van Allen Belts are manifestations of the magnetic field
generated by the earth. This means the Van Allen Belts are part of
the magnetic field generated by the earth. So, your objection
although correct is very much personal.
> Oh that's right, I forgot you are an Apollo denier.
It is good to deny lies. <shrug>
> The Van Allen belt extends out only a few Earth radii. The Apollo
> craft passed through it in short order.
Yes, this is correct.
> What's 10 rad/yr over a week?
Do you not forget the Apollo missions go right to the moon unless they
stayed within the benign environment of the low earth orbit (below the
Van Allen Belts)? If so, they would enjoy only 10 RADs per year over
a week and a half. Do you want to try this one again assuming they
did spend a week and a half outside of the Van Allen Belts?
Eric Gisse
> On Dec 19, 6:12 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > >Interstellar space is postulated to have a large quantity of very high-
> > >energy particles known as cosmic rays. The solar wind form our sun
> > >reduces the number of cosmic rays to a much lower level.
>
> > No.
>
> Yes.
>
> > The solar wind only significantly modulates cosmic rays whose energies
> > are in the MeV range. In the GeV range, the modulation decreases to
> > ~20% and continues to drop as energy increases.
>
> That is a good one. The solar wind modulates the cosmic rays.
I can provide references if you'd bother reading them.
>
> > Do keep in mind that the MeV and GeV protons are a very small part of
> > the overall cosmic ray flux.
>
> <shrug>
>
>
>
> > >The earth's
> > >magnetic field creates these Van Allen Belts which shields and traps
> > >the solar wind and other harmful particles. Below the Van Allen
> > >Belts, the radiation is about 10 RADs per year. It is not lethal but
> > >considered health risk. The earth's atmosphere with the ionosphere
> > >further attenuates the radiation level down to such benign level as
> > >seen on the surface of the earth.
>
> > Not even fucking close.
>
> > What amazes me is your constant almost-but-not-quite understanding of
> > physics. You don't know any of the details, nor can you explain what
> > is actually going on, but you almost always know enough of the words
> > to somewhat piece together what is going on.
>
> > It's too bad you are too arrogant to actually pick up a book to fill
> > in the details. Or maybe you tried and simply couldn't hack the math.
>
> > The magnetic field of the Earth is what sheilds the planet from the
> > solar wind. Nothing else. Most certainly not the Van Allen belts.
>
> Well, the Van Allen Belts are manifestations of the magnetic field
> generated by the earth. This means the Van Allen Belts are part of
> the magnetic field generated by the earth. So, your objection
> although correct is very much personal.
No, the Van Allen belt is NOT a part of the magnetic field. It is a
trapped particle population that is fed by the solar wind.
I already explained the what and why of the belt, but you snipped it
and repeated your misconceptions.
>
> > Oh that's right, I forgot you are an Apollo denier.
>
> It is good to deny lies. <shrug>
>
> > The Van Allen belt extends out only a few Earth radii. The Apollo
> > craft passed through it in short order.
>
> Yes, this is correct.
>
> > What's 10 rad/yr over a week?
>
> Do you not forget the Apollo missions go right to the moon unless they
> stayed within the benign environment of the low earth orbit (below the
> Van Allen Belts)? If so, they would enjoy only 10 RADs per year over
> a week and a half. Do you want to try this one again assuming they
> did spend a week and a half outside of the Van Allen Belts?
"How did the Apollo astronauts survive the radiation form solar wind
and cosmic rays without the protected environment of the Van Allen
Belts?"
You are horribly, horribly confused.
nonsense
> On Dec 19, 11:24 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
>>Do you not forget the Apollo missions go right to the moon unless they
>>stayed within the benign environment of the low earth orbit (below the
>>Van Allen Belts)? If so, they would enjoy only 10 RADs per year over
>>a week and a half. Do you want to try this one again assuming they
>>did spend a week and a half outside of the Van Allen Belts?
> "How did the Apollo astronauts survive the radiation form solar wind
> and cosmic rays without the protected environment of the Van Allen
> Belts?"
> You are horribly, horribly confused.
Probably drives on the same roads the rest of us use.
I guess I'd better stop complaining about insurance
rates.
Koobee Wublee
> On Dec 19, 11:24 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > That is a good one. The solar wind modulates the cosmic rays.
>
> I can provide references if you'd bother reading them.
If the reference is good, I will read it.
> > Well, the Van Allen Belts are manifestations of the magnetic field
> > generated by the earth. This means the Van Allen Belts are part of
> > the magnetic field generated by the earth. So, your objection
> > although correct is very much personal.
>
> No, the Van Allen belt is NOT a part of the magnetic field. It is a
> trapped particle population that is fed by the solar wind.
>
> I already explained the what and why of the belt, but you snipped it
> and repeated your misconceptions.
Well, this is a technicality issue. <shrug>
> > Do you not forget the Apollo missions go right to the moon unless they
> > stayed within the benign environment of the low earth orbit (below the
> > Van Allen Belts)? If so, they would enjoy only 10 RADs per year over
> > a week and a half. Do you want to try this one again assuming they
> > did spend a week and a half outside of the Van Allen Belts?
>
> "How did the Apollo astronauts survive the radiation form solar wind
> and cosmic rays without the protected environment of the Van Allen
> Belts?"
>
> You are horribly, horribly confused.
Confused about what?
Randy Poe
The standard line from the "we never went to the moon
crowd" is supposed to be "How did the Apollo astronauts
survive the terrible radiation of the Van Allen Belts?", that's
what you're confused about. Go back and read your
conspiracy tracts again.
- Randy
Randy Poe
Are these iron filings part of the magnetic field of the bar magnet?
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/magnetic_detection.htm
Is a compass part of the magnetic field of the earth?
> > Oh that's right, I forgot you are an Apollo denier.
>
> It is good to deny lies. <shrug>
>
> > The Van Allen belt extends out only a few Earth radii. The Apollo
> > craft passed through it in short order.
>
> Yes, this is correct.
>
> > What's 10 rad/yr over a week?
>
> Do you not forget the Apollo missions go right to the moon unless they
> stayed within the benign environment of the low earth orbit (below the
> Van Allen Belts)? If so, they would enjoy only 10 RADs per year over
> a week and a half.
Since 1-1/2 weeks is 0.0288 yr, that works out to
0.288 Rad, assuming your numbers are correct.
That seems to be about the order of magnitude measured by
NASA closer to the moon:
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
About 1 mrad per hour, which is on the order of 8-10 Rad/year.
- Randy
Koobee Wublee
> On Dec 20, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Confused about what?
>
> The standard line from the "we never went to the moon
> crowd" is supposed to be "How did the Apollo astronauts
> survive the terrible radiation of the Van Allen Belts?", that's
> what you're confused about. Go back and read your
> conspiracy tracts again.
No, these are your conspiracy theories. However, traversing through
the Van Allen Belts, you will be blinded.
> > Well, the Van Allen Belts are manifestations of the magnetic field
> > generated by the earth. This means the Van Allen Belts are part of
> > the magnetic field generated by the earth. So, your objection
> > although correct is very much personal.
>
> Are these iron filings part of the magnetic field of the bar magnet?
You tell me.
> http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/magnetic_detection.htm
>
> Is a compass part of the magnetic field of the earth?
What do you think?
> > Do you not forget the Apollo missions go right to the moon unless they
> > stayed within the benign environment of the low earth orbit (below the
> > Van Allen Belts)? If so, they would enjoy only 10 RADs per year over
> > a week and a half.
>
> Since 1-1/2 weeks is 0.0288 yr, that works out to
> 0.288 Rad, assuming your numbers are correct.
According to the NASA report, TN D-7080 - Apollo Experience Report -
Protection Against Radiation, each astronaut received a radiation
dosage between 0.16 to 1.14 RADs. This is consistent with the
radiation in the low earth orbit or below the Van Allen Belts.
> That seems to be about the order of magnitude measured by
> NASA closer to the moon:
>
> http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
>
> About 1 mrad per hour, which is on the order of 8-10 Rad/year.
That is from the Cosmic Ray only. <shrug>
Randy Poe
> On Dec 20, Randy Poe wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Confused about what?
>
> > The standard line from the "we never went to the moon
> > crowd" is supposed to be "How did the Apollo astronauts
> > survive the terrible radiation of the Van Allen Belts?", that's
> > what you're confused about. Go back and read your
> > conspiracy tracts again.
>
> No, these are your conspiracy theories. However, traversing through
> the Van Allen Belts, you will be blinded.
>
> > > Well, the Van Allen Belts are manifestations of the magnetic field
> > > generated by the earth. This means the Van Allen Belts are part of
> > > the magnetic field generated by the earth. So, your objection
> > > although correct is very much personal.
>
> > Are these iron filings part of the magnetic field of the bar magnet?
>
> You tell me.
No, they are pieces of iron. A magnetic field is not made
of iron.
>
> >http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/magnetic_detection.htm
>
> > Is a compass part of the magnetic field of the earth?
>
> What do you think?
No, it is an instrument which is influenced by the magnetic
field. It is not part of the magnetic field.
A sail is not part of the wind.
A nail is not part of a hammer.
A scale is not part of your weight.
These distinctions are not "technicalities".
> > > Do you not forget the Apollo missions go right to the moon unless they
> > > stayed within the benign environment of the low earth orbit (below the
> > > Van Allen Belts)? If so, they would enjoy only 10 RADs per year over
> > > a week and a half.
>
> > Since 1-1/2 weeks is 0.0288 yr, that works out to
> > 0.288 Rad, assuming your numbers are correct.
>
> According to the NASA report, TN D-7080 - Apollo Experience Report -
> Protection Against Radiation, each astronaut received a radiation
> dosage between 0.16 to 1.14 RADs. This is consistent with the
> radiation in the low earth orbit or below the Van Allen Belts.
And the radiation in deep space and on the lunar surface.
> > That seems to be about the order of magnitude measured by
> > NASA closer to the moon:
>
> >http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
>
> > About 1 mrad per hour, which is on the order of 8-10 Rad/year.
>
> That is from the Cosmic Ray only. <shrug>
What do you believe the exposure near the moon to
be, and based on what?
- Randy
Androcles
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b8e14116-1051-4886...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
A breakfast is not a walk on the Moon.
A fart is not a diamond.
A tree is not a joke.
: These distinctions are not "technicalities".
A Poe can't say what things are but is very good at saying what they are
not.
A Poe is not intelligent enough to know what things are.
Eric Gisse
Everything. Your understanding of the Earth's magnetosphere and the
associated environment is abysmal.
Why do you think the Van Allen belt PROTECTS against anything?
Koobee Wublee
> On Dec 20, 2:13 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > You tell me.
>
> No, they are pieces of iron. A magnetic field is not made
> of iron.
OK. <shrug>
> > What do you think?
>
> No, it is an instrument which is influenced by the magnetic
> field. It is not part of the magnetic field.
Once again, OK. <shrug>
> A sail is not part of the wind.
>
> A nail is not part of a hammer.
>
> A scale is not part of your weight.
>
> These distinctions are not "technicalities".
It is getting rather old.
> > According to the NASA report, TN D-7080 - Apollo Experience Report -
> > Protection Against Radiation, each astronaut received a radiation
> > dosage between 0.16 to 1.14 RADs. This is consistent with the
> > radiation in the low earth orbit or below the Van Allen Belts.
>
> And the radiation in deep space and on the lunar surface.
This level of radiation is not what deep space craft or geosynchronous
satellites are designed for. <shrug>
> > That is from the Cosmic Ray only. <shrug>
>
> What do you believe the exposure near the moon to
> be, and based on what?
Try 300,000 RADs per year. Remember that the command capsule has a
shield of 0.3g/cm^2.
Eric Gisse
[...]
> > > That is from the Cosmic Ray only. <shrug>
>
> > What do you believe the exposure near the moon to
> > be, and based on what?
>
> Try 300,000 RADs per year. Remember that the command capsule has a
> shield of 0.3g/cm^2.
...and where did you get the first number, exactly?
Are you going to be your typical self and refuse to cite your sources?
nonsense
What sources? He's self-referential.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fdac27ed-7704-4da1...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Eric, don't let the usual crank attempt to show how flimsy the
spacecraft were confuse you.
Radiation shielding, if it is too thin, produces daughter
("spallation") products that are worse than the incident
radiation. So you either go up with just enough to hold air and
maintain some structural stiffness, or you go up with 6-12 inches
of lead. Not enough energy available to lift a lead shield, so
you simply let the high energy stuff pass right through you,
knowing that there are *big* differences between total radiation
(roentgens) and what is actually absorbed (REM) when really high
energy stuff is involved.
As an analogy, you can look up the decay of K40. One is via beta
emission, the more common decay, where a single multi-hundred
gamma particle is produced. The other is positron emission, with
20+ gamma particles showered, all with energies much lower than
can pass out of your body.
Hand grenades don't usually kill with the blast, they kill with
the "daughter products".
David A. Smith
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> Dear Eric Gisse:
>
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fdac27ed-7704-4da1...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 8:49 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> >> > > That is from the Cosmic Ray only. <shrug>
>
> >> > What do you believe the exposure near the moon to
> >> > be, and based on what?
>
> >> Try 300,000 RADs per year. Remember that the
> >> command capsule has a shield of 0.3g/cm^2.
>
> > ...and where did you get the first number, exactly?
>
> > Are you going to be your typical self and refuse to
> > cite your sources?
>
> Eric, don't let the usual crank attempt to show how flimsy the
> spacecraft were confuse you.
It isn't going to confuse me. Before the discussion about the
radiation environment & what is absorbed by the crew could ever even
begin to happen I would have to sort out his complete misunderstanding
about the composition of the planet's magnetosphere and what it does.
But we both know that he will not cite his sources and will repeat his
idiocy a few more times before running away.
He seems to labor under the amazingly inane misconception that the Van
Allen belt is what protects the planet from ionizing radiation.
[...good stuff...]
More motivation pile on the lead bricks for the many experiments that
will have high energy products in the spring.
I wonder how big of a fort I could make out of the supply that is
scattered among the labs and workshops.
Randy Poe
... and based on what? That is, where is this number coming
from?
- Randy
Koobee Wublee
> On Dec 20, 8:49 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Try 300,000 RADs per year. Remember that the command capsule has a
> > shield of 0.3g/cm^2.
>
> ...and where did you get the first number, exactly?
>
> Are you going to be your typical self and refuse to cite your sources?
On Dec 21, 7:23 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 12:49 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Try 300,000 RADs per year. Remember that the command capsule has a
> > shield of 0.3g/cm^2.
>
> ... and based on what? That is, where is this number coming
> from?
This spec is usually confidential for the ones who design electronics
for deep space probes or geosynchronous satellites. I think the
reason why this confidentiality is to protection the lies of the
Apollo program. You can find the truth hidden among the lies by
googling the following.
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=radiation+in+deep+space&btnG=Google+Search
Deep space radiation is not as benign as the low earth orbit of only
10 RADs/year. It just cannot be.
Pepe le Pew
Here is an informative link about the subject. I wish it were more
specific, but this is intended for the general public.
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/FAQs2.html#q16
BTW I believe the US Army no longer uses the typical fragmentation or
'pineapple' hand grenade. They now use the more powerful 'high
explosive' hand grenade. So the main killing product of the explosion
is expansive force rather than fragmentation projectiles.
Later,
Pepe le Pew
nonsense
The analogy wasn't a very good one anyway.
dlzc
On Dec 21, 10:37 am, nonsense <nonse...@unsettled.com> wrote:
> Pepe le Pew wrote:
> > N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
...
> >> Hand grenades don't usually kill with the blast, they
> >> kill with the "daughter products".
...
> > BTW I believe the US Army no longer uses the typical
> > fragmentation or 'pineapple' hand grenade. They now
> > use the more powerful 'high explosive' hand grenade.
> > So the main killing product of the explosion is
> > expansive force rather than fragmentation projectiles.
Actually, such a grenade would be better for throwing, but would use
local "shrubbery" as the projectiles. Because if it did not, it would
be called a "stun grenade", intended to knock people unconscious.
> The analogy wasn't a very good one anyway.
Gets the point across.
Laser weapons have been denigrated because they tend to puncture at
great range... but manage to cauterize the wound. Charged particle
weapons cause much greater damage for the very reason that they spread
out the damage. Less point damage, but widespread overheating.
Is that a better analogy?
David A. Smith
Randy Poe
> On Dec 21, 12:24 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, 8:49 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Try 300,000 RADs per year. Remember that the command capsule has a
> > > shield of 0.3g/cm^2.
>
> > ...and where did you get the first number, exactly?
>
> > Are you going to be your typical self and refuse to cite your sources?
>
> On Dec 21, 7:23 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21, 12:49 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Try 300,000 RADs per year. Remember that the command capsule has a
> > > shield of 0.3g/cm^2.
>
> > ... and based on what? That is, where is this number coming
> > from?
>
> This spec is usually confidential for the ones who design electronics
> for deep space probes or geosynchronous satellites. I think the
> reason why this confidentiality is to protection the lies of the
> Apollo program. You can find the truth hidden among the lies by
> googling the following.
>
>
> Deep space radiation is not as benign as the low earth orbit of only
> 10 RADs/year. It just cannot be.
And why do you say "it just cannot be". Based on what
laws of physics, what principles, what assumptions?
I hope it's not your assumption that the Van Allen belts
are a radiation shield. That's pure wrong. You'd have to
explain how those particles in any way act to shield
radiation.
Also, I hope you're aware that the belts are concentrated
at low latitudes. It's a "belt", not a "ball". So even if
you thought the Van Allen belts were a magic radiation
shield, that wouldn't do much good in the polar regions.
Can we measure 300000 Rad/yr at the North pole?
Final question: Aside from cosmic rays, what do you think
the content of deep space radiation is?
- Randy
Randy Poe
> On Dec 21, 12:24 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This spec is usually confidential for the ones who design electronics
> for deep space probes or geosynchronous satellites. I think the
> reason why this confidentiality is to protection the lies of the
> Apollo program. You can find the truth hidden among the lies by
> googling the following.
>
Which of those contains the number 300000 Rad/yr?
Somehow (surprise, surprise) I'm not finding it.
- Randy
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
The cast iron pineapple grenade went away about 50 years ago.
The standard grenade is high explosive (TNT AIR) wrapped with notched
steel wire with a thin steel cover.
The killing product is the pieces of steel wire that break at the
notches when the grenade goes off.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Eric Gisse
Here is something fun to think about...
Is there even enough energy available in the solar wind and cosmic ray
flux to deliver 300,000 rad/yr?
dlzc
On Dec 21, 11:55 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Pepe le Pew <eatmysho...@biteme.com> wrote:
>
> > BTW I believe the US Army no longer uses the typical
> > fragmentation or 'pineapple' hand grenade. They now use
> > the more powerful 'high explosive' hand grenade. So the
> > main killing product of the explosion is expansive force
> > rather than fragmentation projectiles.
>
> The cast iron pineapple grenade went away about 50 years ago.
>
> The standard grenade is high explosive (TNT AIR) wrapped
> with notched steel wire with a thin steel cover.
>
> The killing product is the pieces of steel wire that break at the
> notches when the grenade goes off.
A fragmentation grenade. So I still had a vaild analogy.
David A. Smith
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> Dear j...:
If you mean a grenade kills by generating high speed flying crap and
not from the exposion itself, yes.
You can not throw enough pure exposive far enough to be much of a
threat unless it goes off real close to the target and even then most
of the damage will most likely be from secondary shrapnel.
AIR, the standard US grenade has a effective casualty radius of about 15
meters, which leads to the old saying that close only counts in hand
grenades and horseshoes. But it has been a few decades since I last had
the occasion to throw one so that number may be a little off.
Koobee Wublee
> On Dec 21, 12:30 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > This spec is usually confidential for the ones who design electronics
> > for deep space probes or geosynchronous satellites. I think the
> > reason why this confidentiality is to protection the lies of the
> > Apollo program. You can find the truth hidden among the lies by
> > googling the following.
>
> >http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=radiation+in+deep...
>
> > Deep space radiation is not as benign as the low earth orbit of only
> > 10 RADs/year. It just cannot be.
>
> And why do you say "it just cannot be". Based on what
> laws of physics, what principles, what assumptions?
Here is an article on the demand for radiation hardened electronics
for orbital and deep space probes.
With 10 RADs per year, it is not even worth hardening. Here is a
specific example of an IC hardened to 10,000 RADs.
http://www.intersil.com/cda/deviceinfo/0,0,HS-0546RH,0.html
> I hope it's not your assumption that the Van Allen belts
> are a radiation shield. That's pure wrong. You'd have to
> explain how those particles in any way act to shield
> radiation.
>
> Also, I hope you're aware that the belts are concentrated
> at low latitudes. It's a "belt", not a "ball". So even if
> you thought the Van Allen belts were a magic radiation
> shield, that wouldn't do much good in the polar regions.
> Can we measure 300000 Rad/yr at the North pole?
When did you become an expert on the Van Allen Belts?
> Final question: Aside from cosmic rays, what do you think
> the content of deep space radiation is?
You tell me since you are an expert now.
> Which of those contains the number 300000 Rad/yr?
This spec is usually confidential for the ones who design electronics
for deep space probes or geosynchronous satellites. I think the
reason why this confidentiality is to protection the lies of the
Apollo program.
> Somehow (surprise, surprise) I'm not finding it.
So, even the existence of the radiation hardened electronics for deep-
space applications is a lie, or the Apollo program is a lie.
Obviously, you have decided on the conspiracy theory of the existence
of the radiation hardened electronics for deep-space applications.
Randy Poe
> Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 12:30 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > This spec is usually confidential for the ones who design electronics
> > > for deep space probes or geosynchronous satellites. I think the
> > > reason why this confidentiality is to protection the lies of the
> > > Apollo program. You can find the truth hidden among the lies by
> > > googling the following.
>
> > >http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=radiation+in+deep...
>
> > > Deep space radiation is not as benign as the low earth orbit of only
> > > 10 RADs/year. It just cannot be.
>
> > And why do you say "it just cannot be". Based on what
> > laws of physics, what principles, what assumptions?
>
> Here is an article on the demand for radiation hardened electronics
> for orbital and deep space probes.
>
>
> With 10 RADs per year, it is not even worth hardening.
It's not? What is this statement based on?
> Here is a
> specific example of an IC hardened to 10,000 RADs.
>
> http://www.intersil.com/cda/deviceinfo/0,0,HS-0546RH,0.html
>
If the exposure of this hardware were 300,000 Rad/year,
then this hardening would make it good for only 1/30 of
a year, or 12 days. That's not much of a lifetime for a
"hardened" product, is it? Would you buy this part for a
deep-space mission if you thought it was only guaranteed
for 12 days?
> > I hope it's not your assumption that the Van Allen belts
> > are a radiation shield. That's pure wrong. You'd have to
> > explain how those particles in any way act to shield
> > radiation.
>
> > Also, I hope you're aware that the belts are concentrated
> > at low latitudes. It's a "belt", not a "ball". So even if
> > you thought the Van Allen belts were a magic radiation
> > shield, that wouldn't do much good in the polar regions.
> > Can we measure 300000 Rad/yr at the North pole?
>
> When did you become an expert on the Van Allen Belts?
That is not expert knowledge, it's basic knowledge.
> > Final question: Aside from cosmic rays, what do you think
> > the content of deep space radiation is?
>
> You tell me since you are an expert now.
I never claimed to be an expert. I am responding to your
sniffing that the NASA radiation dose measurements were
cosmic ray only. Presumably you think something's missing
then. What?
Unless you think there's nothing wrong with cosmic-ray-only
dose measurements. Which is it?
> > Which of those contains the number 300000 Rad/yr?
>
> This spec is usually confidential for the ones who design electronics
> for deep space probes or geosynchronous satellites.
I see. So you don't think it's anywhere in that google search,
but you referred me to that google search as a place where I
could find it. Would you like to explain that?
So if you DON'T think I'll find that number in the google search
you gave me for that number, where DO you think I'll find it?
Where did you get it?
Did you get it from a document? A web page? What?
> I think the
> reason why this confidentiality is to protection the lies of the
> Apollo program.
Yes, yes. But you saw it, I presume. Or you made it up. Which?
> > Somehow (surprise, surprise) I'm not finding it.
>
> So, even the existence of the radiation hardened electronics for deep-
> space applications is a lie, or the Apollo program is a lie.
Who said that? There is radiation in space. It has a number.
That number is not 300,000 Rad/year.
> Obviously, you have decided on the conspiracy theory of the existence
> of the radiation hardened electronics for deep-space applications.
You showed a spec for 10,000 Rad of hardening. If you think
that's sufficient for an extended deep-space mission, then
obviously it's not consistent with 300,000 Rad/year, is it?
- Randy
Koobee Wublee
> Is there even enough energy available in the solar wind and cosmic ray
> flux to deliver 300,000 rad/yr?
Due to the solar wind as described in the article below, the sun sheds
3E-14 solar mass per year with each proton (electrons too) having an
energy of 1KeV (1.60E-16Joul).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
At 1AU (1.50E11m) out, the earth's orbit (thus the moon) receives the
following energy flux solely due to the protons for the solar wind.
(4E-14) (1.99E30Kg) (1.60E-16Joul) / (4 pi (1.67E-27Kg) (1.50E11m)^2)
= 20.2Kjoul/m^2
There are 20.2 kilo Joules of proton energy hitting the orbit of the
earth in square meters per year. Yes, there is more than enough
radiation to cause 300, 000 RADs of radiation per year.
Koobee Wublee
> On Dec 21, 4:17 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Here is an article on the demand for radiation hardened electronics
> > for orbital and deep space probes.
>
> >http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&C=F...
>
> > With 10 RADs per year, it is not even worth hardening.
>
> It's not? What is this statement based on?
You need to use your brain to think about a problem for a change.
> > Here is a
> > specific example of an IC hardened to 10,000 RADs.
>
> >http://www.intersil.com/cda/deviceinfo/0,0,HS-0546RH,0.html
>
> If the exposure of this hardware were 300,000 Rad/year,
> then this hardening would make it good for only 1/30 of
> a year, or 12 days. That's not much of a lifetime for a
> "hardened" product, is it? Would you buy this part for a
> deep-space mission if you thought it was only guaranteed
> for 12 days?
You are so pathetically ignorant. First of all, there are other
devices that are hardened to a higher level. Secondly, have you ever
heard of shielding?
> > When did you become an expert on the Van Allen Belts?
>
> That is not expert knowledge, it's basic knowledge.
You talk as if you are an expert. <shrug>
> > > Final question: Aside from cosmic rays, what do you think
> > > the content of deep space radiation is?
>
> > You tell me since you are an expert now.
>
> I never claimed to be an expert. I am responding to your
> sniffing that the NASA radiation dose measurements were
> cosmic ray only. Presumably you think something's missing
> then. What?
It even said so in that article. <shrug>
> Unless you think there's nothing wrong with cosmic-ray-only
> dose measurements. Which is it?
>
> > This spec is usually confidential for the ones who design electronics
> > for deep space probes or geosynchronous satellites.
>
> I see. So you don't think it's anywhere in that google search,
> but you referred me to that google search as a place where I
> could find it. Would you like to explain that?
>
> So if you DON'T think I'll find that number in the google search
> you gave me for that number, where DO you think I'll find it?
> Where did you get it?
>
> Did you get it from a document? A web page? What?
You need to reason for a change instead of whining. <shrug>
> > I think the
> > reason why this confidentiality is to protection the lies of the
> > Apollo program.
>
> Yes, yes. But you saw it, I presume. Or you made it up. Which?
Did I say 'I think'? So, your complaint is purely unwarranted.
<shrug>
> > So, even the existence of the radiation hardened electronics for deep-
> > space applications is a lie, or the Apollo program is a lie.
>
> Who said that? There is radiation in space. It has a number.
> That number is not 300,000 Rad/year.
Oh, then. What is it?
> > Obviously, you have decided on the conspiracy theory of the existence
> > of the radiation hardened electronics for deep-space applications.
>
> You showed a spec for 10,000 Rad of hardening. If you think
> that's sufficient for an extended deep-space mission, then
> obviously it's not consistent with 300,000 Rad/year, is it?
You are so ignorant. <shrug>
Randy Poe
Really? What conversion are you using to get your
dose estimate, that says 20200 Joules is "more than
enough for 300,000 Rad"?
- Randy
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:tnmt35-...@mail.specsol.com...
...
>> A fragmentation grenade. So I still had a vaild
>> analogy.
>
> If you mean a grenade kills by generating high
> speed flying crap and not from the exposion itself,
> yes.
OK. The very high energy particles an interplantary craft would
encounter will largely pass right through craft and occupants
with little damage. But same "some" shielding, and the
relatively few high energy particles will cascade into a host of
"shrapnel".
> You can not throw enough pure exposive far enough to
> be much of a threat unless it goes off real close to the
> target and even then most of the damage will most
> likely be from secondary shrapnel.
>
> AIR, the standard US grenade has a effective casualty
> radius of about 15 meters, which leads to the old
> saying that close only counts in hand grenades and
> horseshoes. But it has been a few decades since I
> last had the occasion to throw one so that number
> may be a little off.
Faster, smaller fragments provide for a larger kill radius than
with the "pineapple". My guess is it is lighter too, so it can
be thrown farther, and more of them could be carried into battle.
Thanks!
David A. Smith
nonsense
> If the exposure of this hardware were 300,000 Rad/year,
> then this hardening would make it good for only 1/30 of
> a year, or 12 days.
I'd say that all depends on how fast the object
was moving. Near c 12 days is getting close to
forever by my clock.
Pepe le Pew
Its my understanding that weight was a prime drive for the development
of the high explosive grenade. However the high explosive grenades
do have the advantage of a regular shape and this may aid in the flight
phase of their application. That they are packed with
wire fragments is probably an attempt to do more damage to soldiers
who are wearing body armor. Its easier for a small fragment to penetrate
body armor and flesh than a large fragment.
Later,
Pepe le Pew
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> Dear jimp:
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:tnmt35-...@mail.specsol.com...
> ...
> >> A fragmentation grenade. So I still had a vaild
> >> analogy.
> >
> > If you mean a grenade kills by generating high
> > speed flying crap and not from the exposion itself,
> > yes.
> OK. The very high energy particles an interplantary craft would
> encounter will largely pass right through craft and occupants
> with little damage. But same "some" shielding, and the
> relatively few high energy particles will cascade into a host of
> "shrapnel".
More than likely.
> > You can not throw enough pure exposive far enough to
> > be much of a threat unless it goes off real close to the
> > target and even then most of the damage will most
> > likely be from secondary shrapnel.
> >
> > AIR, the standard US grenade has a effective casualty
> > radius of about 15 meters, which leads to the old
> > saying that close only counts in hand grenades and
> > horseshoes. But it has been a few decades since I
> > last had the occasion to throw one so that number
> > may be a little off.
> Faster, smaller fragments provide for a larger kill radius than
> with the "pineapple". My guess is it is lighter too, so it can
> be thrown farther, and more of them could be carried into battle.
It is a trade off.
The old pinapple had larger fragements which maintained energy for
a greater distance but the new grenades produce several times
the number of fragements so the probability of damage at say 5
meters is much greater.
And yes, the new grenade is lighter but most people still can't
throw one far enough to be safe without cover of some sort.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
I can tell you've never held a hand grenade, much less thrown one.
The new grenade is slightly lighter and can be thrown slightly farther.
No one on this planet is capable of throwing a hand grenade fast enough
for the aerodynamics of a grenade to make the slightest difference.
They are not packed with wire fragments, they are wound with notched
wire that fragments when the grenade goes off.
Wire fragements are used so the grenade produces several times the
number of fragments which increases the effectiveness of it by
increasing the probability that fragments will hit something.
A chunk from a pineapple style grenade is much more likely to go through
body armor than the wire fragments and will produce much more damage
to the body, but because of the number of fragments, a new style grenade
is much more likely to cause damage at all and more likely to produce
multiple hits.
Koobee Wublee
> On Dec 21, 4:36 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Due to the solar wind as described in the article below, the sun sheds
> > 3E-14 solar mass per year with each proton (electrons too) having an
> > energy of 1KeV (1.60E-16Joul).
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
>
> > At 1AU (1.50E11m) out, the earth's orbit (thus the moon) receives the
> > following energy flux solely due to the protons for the solar wind.
>
> > (4E-14) (1.99E30Kg) (1.60E-16Joul) / (4 pi (1.67E-27Kg) (1.50E11m)^2)
> > = 20.2Kjoul/m^2
>
> > There are 20.2 kilo Joules of proton energy hitting the orbit of the
> > earth in square meters per year. Yes, there is more than enough
> > radiation to cause 300, 000 RADs of radiation per year.
>
> Really?
Yes, really. Unless I have done the arithmetic incorrectly.
> What conversion are you using to get your
> dose estimate, that says 20200 Joules is "more than
> enough for 300,000 Rad"?
It should be more than enough. The unit of RAD (1 RAD = 100 erg/g =
0.01Joul/Kg) is really an archaic and unrealistic measurement of
radiation. However, when protons alone come at you at 20.2KJoul of
energy per meter squared per year, you will be fried crisp in a matter
of hours. Luckily, the Apollo command module has 0.3g/cm^2. It
provides some sort of shielding but not enough to be considered safe.
Guess where all these deadly photons get filtered. Hint: V Belts.
<CHECKMATE>
Eric Gisse
> On Dec 21, 11:14 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is there even enough energy available in the solar wind and cosmic ray
> > flux to deliver 300,000 rad/yr?
>
> Due to the solar wind as described in the article below, the sun sheds
> 3E-14 solar mass per year with each proton (electrons too) having an
> energy of 1KeV (1.60E-16Joul).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
The mass loss is not isotropic and an average energy of 1 KeV/nucleon
is a factor of two too low.
>
> At 1AU (1.50E11m) out, the earth's orbit (thus the moon) receives the
> following energy flux solely due to the protons for the solar wind.
>
> (4E-14) (1.99E30Kg) (1.60E-16Joul) / (4 pi (1.67E-27Kg) (1.50E11m)^2)
> = 20.2Kjoul/m^2
>
> There are 20.2 kilo Joules of proton energy hitting the orbit of the
> earth in square meters per year. Yes, there is more than enough
> radiation to cause 300, 000 RADs of radiation per year.
A silly and naive calculation. Average particle density at Earth's
orbit is around 10 protons/cm^3 - why you don't use that, I have no
idea.
You are encouraged to dig through the SOHO/ACE data directly since you
will no doubt cry about my usage of 10/cm^3. The SOHO and ACE craft
are parked at the L1 point - far outside the magnetopause, and are
thus directly exposed to the solar wind.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/ace_rtsw_data.html
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/
Proton density at Earth's orbit is on the order of 10/cm^3 [1x10^7/
m^3] with an average speed of 450km/s. The mass density is thus
~2x10^-20 kg/m^3. The mass flux is density times speed, which for the
solar wind is then ~7x10^-16 kg / sm^2. That isn't much.
Energy flux is defined in a similar way. For Earth, the energy flux
form solar wind is ~7x10^-7 J/sm^2. This is equivalent to ~22 J/m^2 /
yr. One rad is defined to be 0.01 J absorbed per kg of matter.
Assuming the kg of matter parked at 1 AU absorbs all the solar wind
impacting upon it for the whole year, it will only pick up ~2200 rad.
Only a factor of 130 off - that's pretty good for you.
Simply put, there isn't enough energy out there from the solar wind to
impart your unsupported claim of 300,000 rad/yr.
Eric Gisse
> On Dec 21, 1:49 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 4:36 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Due to the solar wind as described in the article below, the sun sheds
> > > 3E-14 solar mass per year with each proton (electrons too) having an
> > > energy of 1KeV (1.60E-16Joul).
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
>
> > > At 1AU (1.50E11m) out, the earth's orbit (thus the moon) receives the
> > > following energy flux solely due to the protons for the solar wind.
>
> > > (4E-14) (1.99E30Kg) (1.60E-16Joul) / (4 pi (1.67E-27Kg) (1.50E11m)^2)
> > > = 20.2Kjoul/m^2
>
> > > There are 20.2 kilo Joules of proton energy hitting the orbit of the
> > > earth in square meters per year. Yes, there is more than enough
> > > radiation to cause 300, 000 RADs of radiation per year.
>
> > Really?
>
> Yes, really. Unless I have done the arithmetic incorrectly.
Actually you are wrong by two orders of magnitude.
>
> > What conversion are you using to get your
> > dose estimate, that says 20200 Joules is "more than
> > enough for 300,000 Rad"?
>
> It should be more than enough. The unit of RAD (1 RAD = 100 erg/g =
> 0.01Joul/Kg) is really an archaic and unrealistic measurement of
> radiation. However, when protons alone come at you at 20.2KJoul of
> energy per meter squared per year, you will be fried crisp in a matter
> of hours. Luckily, the Apollo command module has 0.3g/cm^2. It
> provides some sort of shielding but not enough to be considered safe.
> Guess where all these deadly photons get filtered. Hint: V Belts.
>
> <CHECKMATE>
Moron. The Van Allen belts do not protect against ionizing radiation.
The magnetic field is the device that does that job - the Van Allen
belts is a large trapped particle population around the Earth.
You don't have nearly enough energy in the solar wind to do it - how
about the integrated energy flux of the entire cosmic ray spectrum?
Grab arXiv:hep-ph/0206072v3 and see if that helps.
Here is the reference you wanted to see regarding modulation of cosmic
rays by the Sun.
Meyer, P. "Cosmic rays - astronomy with energetic particles", Physics
Today 27 (10) 1974
Koobee Wublee
> On Dec 21, 12:36 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Due to the solar wind as described in the article below, the sun sheds
> > 3E-14 solar mass per year with each proton (electrons too) having an
> > energy of 1KeV (1.60E-16Joul).
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
>
> The mass loss is not isotropic and an average energy of 1 KeV/nucleon
> is a factor of two too low.
Well, the mass loss is mostly in the equator area of the sun. <shrug>
> > At 1AU (1.50E11m) out, the earth's orbit (thus the moon) receives the
> > following energy flux solely due to the protons for the solar wind.
>
> > (4E-14) (1.99E30Kg) (1.60E-16Joul) / (4 pi (1.67E-27Kg) (1.50E11m)^2)
> > = 20.2Kjoul/m^2
>
> > There are 20.2 kilo Joules of proton energy hitting the orbit of the
> > earth in square meters per year. Yes, there is more than enough
> > radiation to cause 300, 000 RADs of radiation per year.
>
> A silly and naive calculation. Average particle density at Earth's
> orbit is around 10 protons/cm^3 - why you don't use that, I have no
> idea.
You are 4 orders of magnitude off. <shrug>
> You are encouraged to dig through the SOHO/ACE data directly since you
> will no doubt cry about my usage of 10/cm^3. The SOHO and ACE craft
> are parked at the L1 point - far outside the magnetopause, and are
> thus directly exposed to the solar wind.
>
> http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/ace_rtsw_data.html
> http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/
You are encouraged to show this 10/cm^3 of data. <shrug>
The rest of nonsense based on an erroneous figure is snipped
mercifully. <Thank God>
Eric Gisse
> On Dec 21, 11:44 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21, 12:36 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Due to the solar wind as described in the article below, the sun sheds
> > > 3E-14 solar mass per year with each proton (electrons too) having an
> > > energy of 1KeV (1.60E-16Joul).
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
>
> > The mass loss is not isotropic and an average energy of 1 KeV/nucleon
> > is a factor of two too low.
>
> Well, the mass loss is mostly in the equator area of the sun. <shrug>
Since the rotation axis of the Sun is tilted about 7 degrees with
respect to the ecliptic, that makes the calculation even dumber.
The solar magnetic field is a spiral and the flow outward isn't even
remotely isotropic.
>
> > > At 1AU (1.50E11m) out, the earth's orbit (thus the moon) receives the
> > > following energy flux solely due to the protons for the solar wind.
>
> > > (4E-14) (1.99E30Kg) (1.60E-16Joul) / (4 pi (1.67E-27Kg) (1.50E11m)^2)
> > > = 20.2Kjoul/m^2
>
> > > There are 20.2 kilo Joules of proton energy hitting the orbit of the
> > > earth in square meters per year. Yes, there is more than enough
> > > radiation to cause 300, 000 RADs of radiation per year.
>
> > A silly and naive calculation. Average particle density at Earth's
> > orbit is around 10 protons/cm^3 - why you don't use that, I have no
> > idea.
>
> You are 4 orders of magnitude off. <shrug>
Oh, so now you know the conditions better than the spacecraft designed
to measure them?
I can tell this round will have many amusing denials.
>
> > You are encouraged to dig through the SOHO/ACE data directly since you
> > will no doubt cry about my usage of 10/cm^3. The SOHO and ACE craft
> > are parked at the L1 point - far outside the magnetopause, and are
> > thus directly exposed to the solar wind.
>
> >http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/ace_rtsw_data.html
> >http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/
>
> You are encouraged to show this 10/cm^3 of data. <shrug>
Look up, dipshit. The links containing the data were JUST given to
you. Is there a particular reason you are unable to click links?
Since you are incapable of doing the work yourself, I'll hold your
hand and direct you to the exact pages that have the current solar
wind conditions @ L1. If you can be bothered to look in the archives,
they have data going back for YEARS.
From the ACE site you couldn't bother reading: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_7d.html
Explaining the data on the 17th from this site was a part of one of my
final exams. It was actually a printout of the graphic on that page.
From the SOHO site you couldn't bother reading: http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/
Right now the particle density is about 1/cm^3. Both spacecraft agree.
On my final exam, I wrote that the Earth passed through the interface
of slow & fast flowing solar wind and into the fast flowing solar wind
region. As opposed to being hit by a mass ejection.
Looks like I was right.
>
> The rest of nonsense based on an erroneous figure is snipped
> mercifully. <Thank God>
I have near real-time direct references to active flight hardware that
was designed to measure this very quantity backing me up. On the other
hand, you have a back-of-the-envelope calculation from Wikipedia that
assumes many things that are not true.
Are you going to admit error, or would you like to deny some more?
Koobee Wublee
> On Dec 21, 11:05 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > You are 4 orders of magnitude off. <shrug>
>
> Oh, so now you know the conditions better than the spacecraft designed
> to measure them?
>
> >http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/ace_rtsw_data.html
> >http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/
>
> > You are encouraged to show this 10/cm^3 of data. <shrug>
>
> Look up, dipshit. The links containing the data were JUST given to
> you. Is there a particular reason you are unable to click links?
OK, dipsh*t. All the data shows protons with energy of greater than
47Kev. Wikapedia article specifically spells out for 1Kev.
> Since you are incapable of doing the work yourself, I'll hold your
> hand and direct you to the exact pages that have the current solar
> wind conditions @ L1. If you can be bothered to look in the archives,
> they have data going back for YEARS.
You deliberately twist the data around to perpetuate your lies. You
can never be an honest scientist. You can never be trusted. The rest
of garbage snipped.
Eric Gisse
> On Dec 22, 12:31 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21, 11:05 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > You are 4 orders of magnitude off. <shrug>
>
> > Oh, so now you know the conditions better than the spacecraft designed
> > to measure them?
>
> > >http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/ace_rtsw_data.html
> > >http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/
>
> > > You are encouraged to show this 10/cm^3 of data. <shrug>
>
> > Look up, dipshit. The links containing the data were JUST given to
> > you. Is there a particular reason you are unable to click links?
>
> OK, dipsh*t. All the data shows protons with energy of greater than
> 47Kev. Wikapedia article specifically spells out for 1Kev.
Gosh, I should have known a page with tables and links is too much for
you to handle without guidance. I have noone to blame but myself.
Let's look at the technical data regarding the MTOF proton monitor
aboard the SOHO craft.
http://umtof.umd.edu/pub/pm1.html
The only part relevant to your unending confusion is this: "PM accepts
ions from 0.3 to 6 keV/e with a minimum 2-dimensional angular
acceptance of ±15° and a geometry factor of 1 x 10-4 cm2."
What about the ACE craft? The relevant instrument being used is
SWEPAM.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/ace/swepam.html
The SWEPAM instrument can only measure ions with energies between 0.26
to 35 KeV.
We could go look at the SIS/EPAM high energy proton data, but that
would be a separate issue that isn't related to the solar wind since
the energies are far, far higher than is possible for solar wind. We
can do that if you'd like, though, because the flux is measured
directly and is relevant to the discussion.
So not only are the proton meters measuring proton energies over a
large range that covers the solar wind, but it _can't_ do valid
science on your claimed 47 KeV protons. The data from ACE and SOHO is
thus the solar wind data, as claimed.
>
> > Since you are incapable of doing the work yourself, I'll hold your
> > hand and direct you to the exact pages that have the current solar
> > wind conditions @ L1. If you can be bothered to look in the archives,
> > they have data going back for YEARS.
>
> You deliberately twist the data around to perpetuate your lies. You
> can never be an honest scientist. You can never be trusted. The rest
> of garbage snipped.
Once again I have supported my position with the instrumentation data
and specifications, and all you have is "Wikipedia says...". Would you
like to revise your position or find a new way to deny the data? I do
hope your next denial is a little better than a deliberate
misunderstanding of the instrument energies and a vague reference to
Wikipedia.
I mean, damn. All you had to say was "oops" and revise your opinion.
But instead, you have to make yourself look very, very stupid. But
then again, you are used to that, aren't you?
Koobee Wublee
I have listened to your whining for quite sometime, and none of the
articles you have provided contradicts with the Wikapedia article on
the solar wind. The following site which you quoted only provided
data with protons of greater than 47KeV. Again, that does not refute
the Wikapedia article on the solar wind.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/ace_rtsw_data.html
My calculation stands, and my assessment on the radiation level the
Apollo astronauts still sands. With 20KJoul per year of protons
hitting the Apollo command modules, the astronauts would not stand a
chance to live as healthily as Aldrin, Armstrong, etc. You are
checkmated for many times already. Be a man and accept the logical
conclusion.
Eric Gisse
Nowhere in the SWEPAM data are the claimed 47 KeV protons. If you are
looking at the SIS or EPAM data, you are doing it wrong because
protons of those energies simply do not come from the Sun. I don't
care if Wikipedia says the sun spews a huge flux of MeV protons - it
is completely irrelevant because it is a secondary source. I am citing
the primary source of which Wikipedia is based: the actual spacecraft
data which samples the solar wind.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_7d.html
The instrument is the SWEPAM, the specifications of which were just
given to you. The instrument CANNOT SEE 47KeV protons. Nowhere on the
ACE page does it say that the SWEPAM instrument is observing protons
with > 47KeV energies. In fact, the only mention of the claimed 47 KeV
protons are on EPAM data which is completely irrelevant to the solar
wind.
You were also given the SOHO proton meter data. SOHO doesn't even /
have/ instruments that can sample these claimed 47KeV protons - the
energy cap for the MTOF proton meter is a full 10 KeV lower.
>
> My calculation stands, and my assessment on the radiation level the
> Apollo astronauts still sands. With 20KJoul per year of protons
> hitting the Apollo command modules, the astronauts would not stand a
> chance to live as healthily as Aldrin, Armstrong, etc. You are
> checkmated for many times already. Be a man and accept the logical
> conclusion.
I hand you the instrument data and specifications which disprove your
assertions, and you STILL think you are right when your only reference
is Wikipedia. Why don't you "be a man" and stop lying and bullshitting
when you are proven wrong?
foolsrushin.
> > [...]
> >>>>That is from the Cosmic Ray only. <shrug>
> >>>What do you believe the exposure near the moon to
> >>>be, and based on what?
> >>Try 300,000 RADs per year. Remember that the command capsule has a
> >>shield of 0.3g/cm^2.
> > ...and where did you get the first number, exactly?
> > Are you going to be your typical self and refuse to cite your sources?
> What sources? He's self-referential.
Try these:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/24jun_electrostatics.htm
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
Sure they were on only a short visit; maybe they had something
better than a skin-cream for the beach, though!
--
foolsrushin.
Koobee Wublee
> On Dec 27, 9:43 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > How many times do I have to tell you that the data from the articles
> > you have brought up does not contradict my post referencing to the
> > Wikipedia article.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ba9ae092a3a8a71a
> > It is time for you to behave professionally for a change.
>
> LIAR
>
> http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_7d.html
Absolutely not a liar.
From the same website,
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/ace_rtsw_data.html
It shows as described below that there are a little bit under 2000
protons per cm^2 with energy of 47KeV to 68(?)KeV.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/EPAM_7d.html
You need to stop whining and stop lying for a change. With a flux of
20KJoul of protons per meter squared per year, there is no chance
anyone can get to the moon and come back as healthy as Niel Armstrong,
Buzz Aldrin, etc. Now, get lost.