I don't have the figures yet on how much radiation the astronauts would receive if
the went to the moon. NASA has not published
that data yet. As a matter of fact NASA had
no Idea of the magnitude of the radiant flux
past 350 miles until after the NIMBUS-7 launch in 1978 and the data was compiled in
1979. As soon as NASA will post the figures
which are available at the outer reaches of
our atmosphere then I might be able to
calculate the flux at the lunar surface. The
figures that are posted, heat and light are
not sufficient to make roentgen calculations,
or to cumpute radiation dose levels. I do know a little about radiation shielding. Gamma and x-rays require haevy metal shielding distance or short intervals of time. cosmic just travels right through everything. Neutrons need something to thermalize them down to 1/10 light speed at which speeds they can be easily trapped with
neutron poisons. It is very difficult to measure neutron dose without using a detector
the size and weight of the human body, since
what makes neutrons dangerous is their thermalization in the H2O present in the human body. All charged particals can be stopped with a magnetic field or thin layer of matter however extremely high energy protons need heavy shielding. Take a look at
some of our present day cameras and notice
how much shielding is provided around the
CCDs especially the Clementine cameras.

If you don't know how much radiation they would recieve then how in the world can you assert that the EVAs were impossible due to radiation? How, indeed, can you use radiation to support any argument for a moon hoax?

Hi BOO

Satellites operate in the Van Allen Radiation Belts. They need to be hardened against that radiation. How do the satellites' manufacturers know how much protection should be installed?

Too little and the satellites fry too quickly.

Too much and they drive up the required size of the booster, making the satellites less economical than they could be.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that NASA has accurate data on radiation?

Always these BS asumptions that are not true. Ignorance is not a virtue. If you look a little bit around, you can find
NASA publication NASA-SP-368 "Biomedical Results of Apollo" at
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/cover.htm It was published in 1975, maybe your problem is that you weren't born that time.
Chapter 3 "RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION"
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm gives plenty of information.

Read.

Harald, slightly upset.

<a name="2-11-28.BA"> page 2-11-28.BA aka BArfff
iN THOSE DAYS: 'LATE 50'S' the 1 Alpha had a metal
cylindar attahed by a cord to the UNIT ..
that wand had an opening cut in the side over
which a sliding metal cover could be slid.
AS I REMember this it was called ths Gamma Shield
and was about the thickness of any can of soup side?
" about so thick, and shiney metal
----------------------------------
but enough and back to scale
{ a LINK goes here to "RAT"tle }
================================
a Rattle is something that takes place in a
LARGE {Alaskan}{{or SanFransiscan} take your pick
Earth Quake .. Um mag 7.7777
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Um? now that? THATs already settled down ?/?
back to this thread D.bait 4:29 A.M. 1/2 hr till math hour BioMe {OHSU link possible in 7 days}

<a name="2-11-28.SFT"> page 2-11-28.SFT aka Solar Flare Time
I REALLY really don't know why i take time for that
4:37 A.M. of course Solar Flares Can be PREdickted
they come along about ever 10.5 years
and thats been know by astrologers for years
-------- YES, and it the same for Earth Quakes 2
they can be 4cast Years ahead
=== yes yesy I know Novenber Quakes was a REAL dud
but Oct was about a factor & 1/2 to TWO
above Xtra.ordinary & thus much of Nov
strain was Pre_Released .. Thus No Novembers
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
it makes plenty sence to me {perhaps no one else}
????????????????????????????
Ok take Lunar Tempature data as an example
Why can you not provide a link to the Grafic
Plot {& raw data}(So I can make my own plot)
of the Lunar Tempature {Rise & Fall} from any
Appolo # you pick other than contraVERSIAL 11
Why this "South Atlanitc" BS anyway
//TILT\ cut to the chase {LUNAR Temp chart&data}

Boo, regarding radiation in the Van Allen belts, tell me, would you accept the views of Dr. James Van Allen, after whom the belts are named? Just tell us here that you will believe what Van Allen thinks regarding radiation hazards of the 'Van Allen belts'. Will you?

Wow, I didn't know that the book had been published on the net! Thanks for the link. I got a copy of the book (now something like 25 years old!) in my bookshelf, and I can assure you the radiation numbers are all there! It certainly shows NASA cared about the radiation issue. Radiation isn't black magic that could have killed astronauts. Radiation is about physics and biology, and biomedicine. In my opinion, NASA definitely had knowledge there.

Rudi

Another good book is NASA SP-3008 Bioastronautics Data Book, James Parker and Vita West, NASA, 1973.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-11-29 15:06 ]</font>

[/b]I don't have the figures yet on how much radiation the astronauts would receive if
the went to the moon.[/b]

Yet you seem to have drawn a conclusion anyway. That's not very scientific.

What if I could provide you with published measured doses from the Apollo missions?

NASA has not published that data yet.

Are you sure?

As a matter of fact NASA had no Idea of the magnitude of the radiant flux past 350 miles until after the NIMBUS-7 launch in 1978

False. Have you considered Gemini and Apollo missions?

I do know a little about radiation shielding. Gamma and x-rays require haevy metal shielding distance or short intervals of time.

No. At least, not for x-rays. Ambient x-ray energy (i.e., aside from solar events) is in the low keV range, whereas medical and other diagnostic x-rays are in the 8 MeV range. Ambient cosmic x-rays cannot even penetrate a meter of air. Large amounts of metals are not required.

however extremely high energy protons need heavy shielding.

"Extremely high energy proton" is just another name for a cosmic ray. And the reason we need to shield against them for cameras is because they ruin the pictures, not because there's a particular biological hazard.

Really? I'll have to look that up; in astronomy, anything above an MeV is considered a gamma ray. This is not a hard-and-fast definition, of course. I have recently thought that the definition of a gamma ray should be any photon with an energy greater than 511 keV = 0.511 MeV, which is the energy in a gamma ray photon when an electron annhilates with a positron (actually, two gamma rays with that energy are created).

Boo, I'll ask again, will you accept the expert opinion of James Van Allen regarding the radiation hazards of the Van Allen Belts? Or do you have some excuse why it should not be trusted?

Hasn't Dr. Van Allen put out a press release about the belts & how hoax peddlers are misinterpreting the data??? Marcus Allen on the Art Bell Show spouted the usual hoaxer nonsense about "900 REM" radiation exposures during Apollo 16 and two-hours each way through the Van Allen belts.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mcclir on 2002-12-01 15:39 ]</font>

Dr. Van Allen helped design the Apollo translunar trajectory. What better vote of confidence can you get?

definitely not. therapeutic radiation is in the MeV energy range. diagnostic is typically not (an exception would be PET imaging, for example). your physician would typically use x-rays between 30 and 100 keV. so would your dentist. this kind of radiation is already potentially harmful! shielding of x-rays and gamma rays starts getting difficult at energies higher than about 10 keV. a quantum energy of only 100 keV already requires heavy metal shielding to significantly reduce radiation intensity. at higher energies it gets even more difficult. for energies lower than about 10 keV, the same result can be achieved with someting as light as an aluminum foil.

there are a lot of definitions around. let me mention this: x-rays and gamma rays are exactly the same - they are electromagnetic radiation, i.e. photons. any electromagnetic radiation beyond UV is considered either x radiation or gamma radiation. the difference is how they have been "produced": gamma rays stem from radioactive processes, whereas x-rays do not. example: at your dentist, the x-ray tube produces x-rays. nothing there is radioactive - when the dentist turns off the machine, nothing is radiating anymore.

rudi

Rudi,
You are the only one I have ever seen use that definition. While it is true that X-rays and gamma rays are both EM, to say that they are identical is like saying that UV and visible light are identical since they are both EM. It is a matter of where in the continuum they are. The wavelength UV is shorter than that of visible light. X-rays are shorter than UV. Gamma rays are shorter than X-rays.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

the subject is controversial (or rather confusing), i know. as for the difference between x- and gamma rays, there are two aspects: quantum energy (wavelength) and the nature of the radiation.

an example: take an x-ray tube and run it at 59.5 kV. this will produce EM (bremsstrahlung and characteristic radiation) which peaks (minimum wavelength) at 59.5 keV. now take americium 241. its radioactive decay process also emits EM at 59.5 keV. now what is the difference between those photons emitted? there is no difference. but in the first case you would call it "x-ray" and in the second case "gamma ray".

see how the US patent office defines x- and gamma rays: "...Gamma rays are usually considered to be produced by some natural phenomenon such as the decay of an atomic nucleus whereas X-rays are usually considered to be produced by an electronic tube or other manufactured device." http://www.uspto.gov/go/classificati...78/defs378.htm

you may also look at what kodak has to say about this issue:
http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/...y/W37_02.shtml

even more confusion...

but you are right too, typically, the quantum energy of gamma rays is above that of x-rays. but this does not mean that this is always the case!

finally, this is what i have learned at university: the only definition of x-ray and gamma ray that is consistent is the one that i have given in the first place (radioactive and nonradioactive nature).

you may also check the Encyclopedia Britannica Concise on http://education.yahoo.com/ for further definitions:

gamma ray:
Penetrating very short-wavelength electromagnetic radiation, similar to an X ray but of higher energy, that is emitted spontaneously by some radioactive substances (see gamma decay, radioactivity). Gamma radiation also originates in the decay of certain subatomic particles, and in particle-antiparticle annihilation (see also antimatter). Gamma rays can initiate nuclear fission, can be absorbed by ejection of an electron (see photoelectric effect), and can be scattered by free electrons (see Compton effect).

X ray:
Electromagnetic radiation of extremely short wavelength produced by the deceleration of charged particles or the transitions of electrons in atoms. X rays travel at the speed of light and exhibit phenomena associated with waves, but experiments indicate that they can also behave like particles (see wave-particle duality). On the electromagnetic spectrum, they lie between gamma rays and ultraviolet radiation. They were discovered in 1895 by W. Röntgen, who named them X rays for their unknown nature. They are used in medicine to diagnose bone fractures, dental cavities, and cancer; to locate foreign objects in the body; and to stop the spread of malignant tumors. In industry, they are used to analyze and detect flaws in structures.


rudi

therapeutic radiation is in the MeV energy range. diagnostic is typically not (an exception would be PET imaging, for example). your physician would typically use x-rays between 30 and 100 keV.

Thanks, my mistake. I know the conspiracy theorist test was done with 8 MeV x-rays. I asked a doctor about this, but I think I must have asked the wrong question.

a quantum energy of only 100 keV already requires heavy metal shielding to significantly reduce radiation intensity.

But is this according to legal exposure limits, or practical ones? Keep in mind that legal limits are very, very low.

for energies lower than about 10 keV, the same result can be achieved with someting as light as an aluminum foil.

That is ultimately my point. This is the energy consistent with ambient cosmic x-rays, and this is what the film had to be shielded against.

there are a lot of definitions around.

So I've discovered. It was a bit surprising to me to hear 8 MeV considered "x-ray" but perhaps this is a definition used by equipment manufacturers.

x-rays and gamma rays are exactly the same - they are electromagnetic radiation

Highly misleading. According to this definition, microwaves and gamma rays are exactly the same, and in practical terms they are not.

the difference is how they have been "produced"

No, the chief difference is, and has always been, wavelength and the effects of wavelength.

gamma rays stem from radioactive processes, whereas x-rays do not.

That would come as a great surprise to those who make atomic weapons, depending on what you mean by "radioactive processes". While the most harmful radiation from a nuclear explosion occurs in the gamma wavelength, there is considerable x-ray radiation as well.

If by "radioactive process" you mean simple decay, you might have a point.

at your dentist, the x-ray tube produces x-rays. nothing there is radioactive

That x-rays can be produced by Brehmsstrahlung (the typical means used to produce medical x-rays) does not imply that they can only be produced that way. Again, I'm not sure that's what you intended to convey.

Here is the exact quote from the pseudoscienitific finding:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-12-02 10:09 ]</font>

a physician is probably not the right person to answer that kind of question. but still, you have the answer in your quote at the bottom: the "x-rays" were reportedly produced with a linear accelerator. that is what i say: if you can pull out the plug and it stops radiating, then there is no "radioactive process" involved, and then it is x-rays, not gamma rays. see the definition below.

the mass attenuation coefficient table of hubbell of the NIST and the exponential attenuation law answer that question:
http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/...oef/cover.html --- my quick calculations yield: 1cm of lead will attenuate the radiation intensity to 4.1E-3 (for 100keV) and to 3.5E-57 (for 10keV).


again, according to my definition, these are actually x-rays! see the definition below.

ok, that was a bit misleading. what i mean is: if, for instance, a 1 MeV photon from outer space hits a detector of some scientist, that scientist will not be able to tell whether this is an x-ray or a gamma ray photon (provided that he does not know where the photon comes from...)


well, in my opinion, this typically holds true because "radioactive processes" will typically produce photons at much higher quantum energies than "no-radioactive processes". see the definition below.

ok, "nuclear process" is not a good term. i mean nuclear disintegration (decay) or nuclear transformation (a process where you could measure something in "becquerel").

here is the best definition (consistent and clean) i have found so far (100% compatible with my view):
(found in: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/fusion-faq/glossary/). note the term "by definition". the definition is in the nature of the "production process". the quantum energy level is a consequence of that.

X Ray: A penetrating form of electromagnetic radiation emitted either when the inner orbital electrons of an excited atom return to their normal state (characteristic x-rays), or when a high speed electron collides sharply with an ion or atomic target (bremsstrahlung). X-rays have energies from roughly 100 eV to roughly 100 keV. (Below X-rays are ultraviolet rays, and above X-rays in energy are gamma rays.) X-rays are (basically by definition) non-nuclear in origin. (Nuclear electromagnetic radiation termed gamma radiation.)

Gamma Rays: Electromagnetic radiation (photons) with energies greater than (roughly) 100 keV (that is, 100,000 electron volts). Gamma radiation frequently accompanies alpha and beta decays, and always accompanies fission. Gamma rays are highly penetrating and are best shielded against using dense materials, such as
lead or depleted uranium. (Gamma rays are similar to X-rays, but are generally higher in energy and nuclear in origin.)

rudi

a physician is probably not the right person to answer that kind of question.

If the physician is a radiology specialist, it makes sense. But if I recall correctly I asked something like, "Is this consistent with x-ray equipment you use?" and he may have been thinking of therepeutic x-rays. I don't recall if he said anything that would justify my statement that "diagnostic" x-rays are in the 8 MeV range. If, indeed, medical dagnostic x-rays are typically below 1 MeV then I need to be careful not to convey the wrong impression to readers who may not know this.

but still, you have the answer in your quote at the bottom: the "x-rays" were reportedly produced with a linear accelerator.

I was hoping you'd notice this. Obviously Dr. Groves is not using medical x-ray equipment.

if you can pull out the plug and it stops radiating, then there is no "radioactive process" involved, and then it is x-rays, not gamma rays.

I see your point, and that comes down to what sort of definition one wants to apply. I'm not saying your definition is wrong or inapplicable, simply that other definitions are used. Let's not belabor that. If EM radiation at 8 MeV is an x-ray in your book, and a gamma ray in someone else's book, that's fine by me.

ok, that was a bit misleading. what i mean is: if, for instance, a 1 MeV photon from outer space hits a detector of some scientist ...

Well, in that scenario your statement makes sense. But the issue that confuses hoax believers is the relationship between wavelength and penetrating power. High-energy photons penetrate more deeply into some given substance than lower-energy photons. They also have greater tendency to ionize the absorbing substance. This has ramifications for shielding.

Hoax believers argue that insufficient shielding was provided against x-rays in outer space, and that the photographic film should have been fogged as a result. Their tests appear to confirm this. It is our contention that the test is invalid precisely because it employed x-rays of a ridiculously high energy level.

well, in my opinion, this typically holds true because "radioactive processes" will typically produce photons at much higher quantum energies than "no-radioactive processes".

Agreed, but again the primary point of confusion for hoax believers is the difference in behavior of a photon depending on its wavelength. A photon is a photon, whether it's green or gamma, but we can't read too much into that identity when the differentiating factor is what we're interested in.

ok, "nuclear process" is not a good term. i mean nuclear disintegration (decay) or nuclear transformation (a process where you could measure something in "becquerel").

Then I think we're on the same page. You wish to draw the distinction between an "induced" state of excitation (e.g., brehmsstrahlung) and the products of spontaneous natural decay, that's fine. Whether that constitutes a good definition of the boundary between x-rays and gamma rays is actually not something that affects my work.

For the purposes of photographic film the following facts remain:

1. The bulk of ambient x-rays from celestial sources occurs in the band 500 eV to 5 keV. There is no significant occurrence of ambient x-rays above 10 keV.

2. The film magazine walls were thick and dense enough to attenuate ambient x-rays to insignificant levels.

3. Dr. David Groves' experiment does not accurately reproduce the ionizing EM environment of cislunar space and hence is not an applicable demonstration of the behavior of photographic film during space voyages to the moon.

10:48 A.M. <a name="2-12-02.tt"> page 2-12-02.tt aka TEST TIME
any MAIN event can be broken up into sub events
take CME as an example
Beginning usually optically coupled {light}
also fast X-rays which to me seamed slower
{from BakiniS than the RED light? {donno?}
Middle after a while the FAST ProTONs {2hr from SUN}
I associate these with Magnatizm$ see GAMEa
END Slow stuff thats days later (in Mushrooms) its Ionized Ho2U
from Sun its electrons first & Protons second

<a name="2-12-02.N/S"> page 2-12-02.N/S aka Non Sence
On 2002-12-02 13:48, HUb' wrote: to 10:59 A.M. HUb'
iKNOW, iKNOW .. it makes no cents.. SO
let me call this thread an BAd "event
and do some word counts myself
12-01 to 02 "x-ray" =67 "keV"=21 Gamma=48 Alpha=3 HU =26
1
FROM THIS DATA? ill now focus {10 to 11} on keV
2

3

4

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-12-02 14:05 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-12-02 14:13 ]</font>

Don't know, but I found this.

http://www.apollohoax.com/30billion.htm

_________________
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." -Psalms 19:1 (NIV)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-12-02 16:02 ]</font>

<a name="TABLE.PHY"> page TABLE.PHY aka TABLE {metaPHYSICAL}
<pre>
posted December 2, 2002 2:05 P.M. PST
_____ {{photons}}
__d3__ clock 3: Planets orbits the Sun // Planets Spin on axis
***[ PREPOSED TABLE of metaPHYSICAL UNITS ]*********
^1.? ^2 VELO |-------erg0---^3-----| ? ^4 ?
TIME LENGTH CITY FORCE {fudge}[e6] WORK POWER MASS
{--default--} &Acc {factor} energy {default}
us ?-16 _raff e-30 #construkt !plank fg(-15)
ms ?-9 _felt e-24 #gravolti !graft ag(-12)
ms ?-4 _rif e-18 #parton !part pg(-9)
cs mm _sta 1.6 e-12 eVolt !surge ug(-6)
ds mm mm/ds _lyte e -6 #bolt !merg mg(-3)
s cm cm/s dyne 1 e 0 erg ! gram(UNIT)
SEC METER M/S NEWTON 10 e 6 Joule WATT kg( 3)
?hr M _warm 3.6 e 12 kWhr !cty Mg( 6)
?11hr kM KM/Hr _blite 4.2 e 18 kTonn !boom Gg( 9)
?day ?+4 _shake e 24 #Rh.ictar !rattle (12)
?14 3/4d?+9 _wiew e 30 #Tp.actor !wtcht (15)
?yr ?+16 _sheen e 36 #Sf.un !flue2 (18)
??Myr ?+25 _puff e 42 #O___blartor !wowe (21)
{ _ preposed words for units of force for each scale level}
{ # preposed words for units of energy for each scale level}
{ ! preposed words for units of power for each scale level}
_____
</pre>
.1 this TABLE i use as a reference for Physical {d3}
2. I suppose there exist 5 such tables based upon spinrbits
3? 4 of the tables are nonexistant to lacking
4: even this {erg steps = Million vs 1000} lacks BIG WORDS

let me say this, when refering to Large scale energy events?
a Rattle for example {in my opinion} its wrong to use
small scale ideas {keV} because the MASS{Right} and Time{Left} scale distorts meanings

Jim Collier is hardly a reliable source. He was one of the least knowledgeable and more arrogant conspiracy theorist writers. I don't accuse him of lying about his interview with Van Allen, but I don't agree with the spin he puts on it.

First, Geiger counters don't give you all the data you need to know in order to create an engineering solution. So Collier's reliance on Van Allen's counter readings as the primary characterization of cislunar radiation is inappropriate.

Second, Van Allen's initial readings included parasitic radiation from orbital nuclear testing. This wasn't an issue in 1969.

Says Dr. Van Allen, "All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed". And Van Allen participated actively with NASA in developing just such a trajectory for Apollo.

Regarding his advice to shield the spacecraft, we wonder what Van Allen's notion of "spacecraft" would have been in 1959, since the U.S. had very little experience by that time building manned spacecraft. How could Van Allen have been speaking at this time about an Apollo spacecraft? We presume Collier understands Van Allen's comment to refer to heavy, dense shielding like that provided against gamma rays. Most laymen (and Collier certainly is one) don't realize how relatively easy it is to shield against other types of radiation.

Writes Collier, "National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), which is part of the Department of Defense and the CIA ..." Are you starting to see some of the familiar paranoid rhetoric of the conspiracy theorist?

Extra shielding of lead or another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed.

I highly doubt Van Allen would have suggested lead. Because ...

One of the most interesting of Van Allen's findings was that once protons and electrons hit the aluminum skin of the spacecraft, they would turn into x-rays.

Well, they don't "turn into" x-rays. And neither did Van Allen discover this; the Brehmsstrahlung effect was well known. But this relates to the prior point in that the amount of x-rays produced is in direct proportion to the atomic weight of the substance being bombarded. In other words, aluminum is far better for this purpose than lead. So why, if Van Allen was concerned about Brehmsstrahlung, would he recommend a heavier material as shielding?

This is where Collier ceases to be credible. He freely mixes his own (lack of) scientific understanding with statements obtained from Van Allen and others, and the result is useless.

The kind the average dentist protects patients against with two inch lead vests.

Well, maybe half an inch. And it's not that much lead -- it's just that thick because it's lead-impregnated fabric. It has to be flexible. In sheet form it would be very, very thin.

And let's not forget the difference between legal exposure and practical safe exposure. The dentist has much more stringent requirements imposed on him.

the astronauts would receive that amount [5 rem] within minutes passing through the lower zone of the radiation belt.

Which is why they didn't go through that part. And we can quibble about his estimate: where did he get the notion that typical inner-belt exposure would be 5 rem in a few minutes? And where did he get the notion that 5 rem is "critical exposure"? The lethal dose is somewhere around 350-400 rem. Again, Collier can't distinguish between legal occupational doses and actually harmful doses.

It was at this point in our research that we realized the Van Allen Report had been seriously compromised by NASA.

No, it had been implemented by NASA. Van Allen recommended avoiding the belts. NASA did this by trajectory design, in which Van Allen participated. Van Allen recommended suitable spacecraft skins. NASA did this by using appropriate materials (not lead).

When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said, "It must have been a sloppy statement."

Collier then lambasts Van Allen, implying he sold out to NASA, implying he should have been a whistle-blower, implying that a scientist should be once and forever right in his initial findings. Collier, of course, is not a scientist and displays considerable ignorance of scientific principles as well as how scientists think and act.

Why must we invariably accept Van Allen's work in 1959-1961 as ultimately authoritative, and discard his continuing work hand-in-hand with NASA from 1961 to the present? Why must we disallow Van Allen the privilege enjoyed by every other scientist, to revise his findings pursuant to new research? Why must Van Allen's well-funded research in conjunction with NASA take a back seat to his initial, poorly-funded efforts?

The whole point of science is the notion that every conclusion must be considered, in the words of Karl Popper, "forever tentative." Science is the process of continually revising, reviewing, and refining our understanding according to new information that we obtain. The notion that Van Allen "sold out" is simply Collier's attempt to paste his paranoid delusions onto Van Allen's work.

Just as a point, the process making an EM photon should have nothing to do with what you call it. An X-ray is an X-ray whether it's from Brehmsstrahlung or from an electron undergoing second order Fermi acceleration.

The naming convention of which I am aware only depends on energy (which is the same as wavelength or frequency, take your pick).

<a name="2-12-03.elE"> page 2-12-03.elE aka 4:38 A.M.PST
On 2002-12-02 18:34, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Just as a point, the process making an EM photon should have nothing to do with what you call it. An X-ray is an X-ray whether it's from Brehmsstrahlung or from an electron undergoing second order Fermi acceleration.

The naming convention of which I am aware only depends on energy (which is the same as wavelength or frequency, take your pick).
4:39 A.M. I disagree: An electron in 3D is not an electron in 2D
ones masulen the other feminan thus projecting
different attractive / repulsive properties
and to say an Adam is an Adam is wrong
it depend Quite a very lot upon the frame is in.. whater its in orbit, already down{landed} but still in a spin, or jus sitting there unmoved collecting DUST 4:44 A.M.