|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
Il giorno venerdì 9 giugno 2017 13:26:53 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:40:00 AM UTC-4, wrote: ..but i try again to understand : on the beginning , without the suspected anomaly , they observed like a deceleration of their ground clocks .. but the ground and in-rocket cloks were good .. is it so the history ? ... or like the rocket was sending a frequency , but this frequency was lower than the waited-one ... is it so ? Actually it's possible to see what navigators and analysts were thinking about at the time because they wrote about their concerns regularly and published it in a journal. It's called the DSN Progress Report, and all of the issues are online dating back to 1971 (just google for the term). They were thinking about clocks, yes, but also anything else that could bias the signal. Gas leaks in the propulsion system was a big concern, and were known to be active at some times early in the mission. Modeling of solar radiation pressure was a big deal and analysts were perfecting the process, but there was always the concern about the change in optical properties of the spacecraft coatings (darkening of white coatings), etc. CM ... you are almost sympatic ( kind , in other words?).. because you try to meet people and opinions .. ... i put the final(?) anwear in other way : if some phenomena should make lower the frequencies sent in the spatial vacuum , could that phenomena explain our misterious anomaly ? |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:36:34 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:44:11 AM UTC-4, wrote: The following paragraph is exactly as written in Anderson's paper. ... trim for brevity ... The Cassini HGA dish properties would be much the same as those for Pioneer. As would be the RTG surface coatings. Even if they weren't, their properties would have been established prior to launch. Then there's the "relatively large systematic from the close in Cassini RTGs" to be considered. If Turyshev's thermal solution accounts for the Pioneer anomaly, why isn't it also required to account for a Cassini anomaly? How do you explain the non-gravitational acceleration of Cassini (as predicted by my theory) ??? Why don't you consult the PhD Thesis of "The non-gravitational accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft and the nature of the Pioneer anomaly" by Mauro di Benedetto. You've been referred to it several times, but conveniently ignore it. You're an analyst and your assessment of Mauro di Benedetto's work should be fairly accurate. On 29-4-17 in your reply to a question from old...@yahoo you wrote this paragraph; "It's an interesting question. No effect similar to the Pioneer anomaly has been detected with the Cassini doppler data. Cassini is indeed a more complicated spacecraft, and there are more trajectory disturbances for Cassini than for Pioneer. The very detailed PhD work of Benedetto was able to rule out a Pioneer-like anomaly using the full Cassini data set." So, did Benedetto rule out a Pioneer-like anomaly or not? You don't seem so sure any more. Whatever your unsubstantiated assumptions, the Pioneers and Cassini are not identical. There are several quite substantial differences. First of all, no-one has done a thermal model of Cassini for the purposes of asymmetric radiation patterns, so it is not possible to comment either way if they should be significant. These calculations depend somewhat sensitively on where the power-producing and -consuming components are located and the view factors to other bodies and to space. Cassini is configured in a much different way than the Pioneers so we cannot assume similarity. You just decided to speculate without substantiation that Cassini is similar to the Pioneers, but why do that without evidence? Second of all, there are things we *know* are very different. Cassini is ~10x more massive than Pioneers. The Pioneers area to mass ratio is about 10 times larger than the Cassini area to mass ratio. This means that *accelerations* due to solar and internally-generated thermal are about 10x smaller for the same input signal. If you had bothered to read the di Benedetto thesis you would have found extensive discussions of the RTGs, which are quite different than the Pioneer's RTGs. --- --- "exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer"? Did they know something Turyshev didn't? Cute. Rather that learning about thermal emissivity properties, you instead decide to invent a conspiracy theory (see #5 below). The thermal coatings were documented, and *some* UV and radiation tests were performed on those coatings in laboratories, but they did not mimic the exact space environment the Pioneers experienced. So do we really know the amount of degradation experienced? What we do know is that most thermal coatings degrade by changing their optical reflectivity (absorptivity) but have very little change to the infrared emissivity. You could have read about this but did not. Increased absorptivity with no change in emissivity only reduces solar radiation pressure. It has no effect whatever on the fore/aft drive ratio from the internally generated RTG thermal energy. Think about it. The emissivity of the surfaces hasn't changed at all. And without the sunward drive asymmetry the thermal solution fails. You seem fixated upon the RTGs. Exactly! That's where the thermal solution fails. Read the paragraph you replied to. This part paragraph is from Turyshev's paper: "Approximately 25% of the RTG coated surfaces were exposed to solar irradiation. A calculation that takes into account the relative contribution of RTG heat to the total anisotropy yields a corresponding error figure of 25% in the overall error budget." It's impossible for the RTG's to provide anything like 25% of in the overall error budget. The uncertainties in the surface coating does **not** help the thermal solution at all. If absorptivity increases, emissivity normally increases as well and the emissivity of the fore surface will be greater than the aft surface. So the RTG's will be driven away from the sun by the internally produced thermal energy, which overwhelms any residual inward drive generated from solar thermal energy absorption. Or if the sun facing RTG surface coating was such that the effects of solar radiation causes an absorptivity increase with zero emissivity change, the RTG's would only be driven sunward according to the small solar thermal absorption/emissivity imbalance. Because the emissivity of all surfaces remains unchanged the RTG generated thermal energy will be emitted equally in all directions. Which gives zero drive from that source (ignoring the reflections off the rear of the HGA dish). The RTG's will only be driven to the sun by the internally produced thermal energy if the sun facing surface emissivity decreases. And in order to generate 25% of the overall error budget the decrease would need to be substantial. But according to Turyshev the maximum negative emissivity generated from the irradiated sun facing surfaces is only 5%. That's the maximum fore/aft emissivity difference for the RTG's **AND IT'S NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH.** --- --- But let's summarize the issues you seem to be willfully ignoring. --- (irrelevant content snipped again) --- So I ask again: if this is so important to you, why don't you stop ignoring important things? It's clear you have your own theory to hawk, and are willing to ignore anything that disagrees with it. So why should we listen to you? I was hoping you could provide me with some real proof that the anomaly doesn't exist, but sadly I've proven you wrong instead. And yes, I do have a theory. But it's so far removed from current theory that I don't think they could coexist in the same forum. The tendency would be to attempt to unify the two and that's impossible. So I'm left with a dilemma. How do I convince the physics world to throw out just about everything they've come to accept as reality and replace it with completely different physics? There's no possibility of the theories competing on a level playing field either because that field is comparable to Mount Everest. The only way forward would seem to be via some rouge university peddling the zero origin universe exclusively. That university would rise from the dust while all others fade away. ----- Max Keon |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
Il giorno domenica 11 giugno 2017 02:38:54 UTC+2, ha scritto:
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:36:34 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote: On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:44:11 AM UTC-4, wrote: The following paragraph is exactly as written in Anderson's paper. ... trim for brevity ... The Cassini HGA dish properties would be much the same as those for Pioneer. As would be the RTG surface coatings. Even if they weren't, their properties would have been established prior to launch. Then there's the "relatively large systematic from the close in Cassini RTGs" to be considered. If Turyshev's thermal solution accounts for the Pioneer anomaly, why isn't it also required to account for a Cassini anomaly? How do you explain the non-gravitational acceleration of Cassini (as predicted by my theory) ??? Why don't you consult the PhD Thesis of "The non-gravitational accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft and the nature of the Pioneer anomaly" by Mauro di Benedetto. You've been referred to it several times, but conveniently ignore it. You're an analyst and your assessment of Mauro di Benedetto's work should be fairly accurate. On 29-4-17 in your reply to a question from old...@yahoo you wrote this paragraph; "It's an interesting question. No effect similar to the Pioneer anomaly has been detected with the Cassini doppler data. Cassini is indeed a more complicated spacecraft, and there are more trajectory disturbances for Cassini than for Pioneer. The very detailed PhD work of Benedetto was able to rule out a Pioneer-like anomaly using the full Cassini data set." So, did Benedetto rule out a Pioneer-like anomaly or not? You don't seem so sure any more. Whatever your unsubstantiated assumptions, the Pioneers and Cassini are not identical. There are several quite substantial differences. First of all, no-one has done a thermal model of Cassini for the purposes of asymmetric radiation patterns, so it is not possible to comment either way if they should be significant. These calculations depend somewhat sensitively on where the power-producing and -consuming components are located and the view factors to other bodies and to space. Cassini is configured in a much different way than the Pioneers so we cannot assume similarity. You just decided to speculate without substantiation that Cassini is similar to the Pioneers, but why do that without evidence? Second of all, there are things we *know* are very different. Cassini is ~10x more massive than Pioneers. The Pioneers area to mass ratio is about 10 times larger than the Cassini area to mass ratio. This means that *accelerations* due to solar and internally-generated thermal are about 10x smaller for the same input signal. If you had bothered to read the di Benedetto thesis you would have found extensive discussions of the RTGs, which are quite different than the Pioneer's RTGs. --- --- "exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer"? Did they know something Turyshev didn't? Cute. Rather that learning about thermal emissivity properties, you instead decide to invent a conspiracy theory (see #5 below). The thermal coatings were documented, and *some* UV and radiation tests were performed on those coatings in laboratories, but they did not mimic the exact space environment the Pioneers experienced. So do we really know the amount of degradation experienced? What we do know is that most thermal coatings degrade by changing their optical reflectivity (absorptivity) but have very little change to the infrared emissivity. You could have read about this but did not. Increased absorptivity with no change in emissivity only reduces solar radiation pressure. It has no effect whatever on the fore/aft drive ratio from the internally generated RTG thermal energy. Think about it. The emissivity of the surfaces hasn't changed at all. And without the sunward drive asymmetry the thermal solution fails. You seem fixated upon the RTGs. Exactly! That's where the thermal solution fails. Read the paragraph you replied to. This part paragraph is from Turyshev's paper: "Approximately 25% of the RTG coated surfaces were exposed to solar irradiation. A calculation that takes into account the relative contribution of RTG heat to the total anisotropy yields a corresponding error figure of 25% in the overall error budget." It's impossible for the RTG's to provide anything like 25% of in the overall error budget. The uncertainties in the surface coating does **not** help the thermal solution at all. If absorptivity increases, emissivity normally increases as well and the emissivity of the fore surface will be greater than the aft surface. So the RTG's will be driven away from the sun by the internally produced thermal energy, which overwhelms any residual inward drive generated from solar thermal energy absorption. Or if the sun facing RTG surface coating was such that the effects of solar radiation causes an absorptivity increase with zero emissivity change, the RTG's would only be driven sunward according to the small solar thermal absorption/emissivity imbalance. Because the emissivity of all surfaces remains unchanged the RTG generated thermal energy will be emitted equally in all directions. Which gives zero drive from that source (ignoring the reflections off the rear of the HGA dish). The RTG's will only be driven to the sun by the internally produced thermal energy if the sun facing surface emissivity decreases. And in order to generate 25% of the overall error budget the decrease would need to be substantial. But according to Turyshev the maximum negative emissivity generated from the irradiated sun facing surfaces is only 5%. That's the maximum fore/aft emissivity difference for the RTG's **AND IT'S NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH.** --- --- But let's summarize the issues you seem to be willfully ignoring. --- (irrelevant content snipped again) --- So I ask again: if this is so important to you, why don't you stop ignoring important things? It's clear you have your own theory to hawk, and are willing to ignore anything that disagrees with it. So why should we listen to you? I was hoping you could provide me with some real proof that the anomaly doesn't exist, but sadly I've proven you wrong instead. And yes, I do have a theory. But it's so far removed from current theory that I don't think they could coexist in the same forum. The tendency would be to attempt to unify the two and that's impossible. So I'm left with a dilemma. How do I convince the physics world to throw out just about everything they've come to accept as reality and replace it with completely different physics? There's no possibility of the theories competing on a level playing field either because that field is comparable to Mount Everest. The only way forward would seem to be via some rouge university peddling the zero origin universe exclusively. That university would rise from the dust while all others fade away. ----- Max Keon .... a personal question perhaps very stupid for Max Keon .. ... if i understood well , he (MK) wants to explain an acceleration anomaly making the sun with a bigger mass than suspected-one .. if that-bigger sun- was true , all solar sistem should be changed , but our anomaly is rising relatively to the unchanged sistem which we observe now .. something is not turning well , for me.. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 8:38:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:36:34 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote: On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:44:11 AM UTC-4, wrote: The following paragraph is exactly as written in Anderson's paper. ... trim for brevity ... The Cassini HGA dish properties would be much the same as those for Pioneer. As would be the RTG surface coatings. Even if they weren't, their properties would have been established prior to launch. Then there's the "relatively large systematic from the close in Cassini RTGs" to be considered. If Turyshev's thermal solution accounts for the Pioneer anomaly, why isn't it also required to account for a Cassini anomaly? How do you explain the non-gravitational acceleration of Cassini (as predicted by my theory) ??? Why don't you consult the PhD Thesis of "The non-gravitational accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft and the nature of the Pioneer anomaly" by Mauro di Benedetto. You've been referred to it several times, but conveniently ignore it. You're an analyst and your assessment of Mauro di Benedetto's work should be fairly accurate. On 29-4-17 in your reply to a question from old...@yahoo you wrote this paragraph; "It's an interesting question. No effect similar to the Pioneer anomaly has been detected with the Cassini doppler data. Cassini is indeed a more complicated spacecraft, and there are more trajectory disturbances for Cassini than for Pioneer. The very detailed PhD work of Benedetto was able to rule out a Pioneer-like anomaly using the full Cassini data set." So, did Benedetto rule out a Pioneer-like anomaly or not? You don't seem so sure any more. I guess nuance is lost on you. Cassini is indeed a more complex spacecraft, there are countably more disturbing forces, but they can be understood with careful analysis. A Pioneer-like effect was ruled out. You could have read di Benedetto the work, but apparently did not. What I object to is your apparent wish to be spoon-fed interpretations of the serious work of others so you can dismiss them, apparently without even reading them yourself. (see items 1-10 below). *YOU* made the unsubstantiated assumption about how simple it would be for someone to thermally model the Cassini spacecraft and how similar it would be to the Pioneers (item 10 below). Why don't you substantiate your claims? Whatever your unsubstantiated assumptions, the Pioneers and Cassini are not identical. There are several quite substantial differences. First of all, no-one has done a thermal model of Cassini for the purposes of asymmetric radiation patterns, so it is not possible to comment either way if they should be significant. These calculations depend somewhat sensitively on where the power-producing and -consuming components are located and the view factors to other bodies and to space. Cassini is configured in a much different way than the Pioneers so we cannot assume similarity. You just decided to speculate without substantiation that Cassini is similar to the Pioneers, but why do that without evidence? Second of all, there are things we *know* are very different. Cassini is ~10x more massive than Pioneers. The Pioneers area to mass ratio is about 10 times larger than the Cassini area to mass ratio. This means that *accelerations* due to solar and internally-generated thermal are about 10x smaller for the same input signal. If you had bothered to read the di Benedetto thesis you would have found extensive discussions of the RTGs, which are quite different than the Pioneer's RTGs. I note no response. These are all valid reasons for Cassini to be not-so-simple and not-so-similar to the Pioneers. (see item 10 below) [ re-inserting the summary of discussion that you conveniently deleted. ] So, sorry to burst your bubble, but it turned out that Anderson et al’s conclusions from 2001 were too simple and speculative, and also not born out by the data or the detailed thermal modeling. Why you insist on hugging that result when more refined results and Doppler data have followed is close to madness. I note that you conveniently deleted and ignored this crucial discussion. Anderson made simplifying assumptions that turned out to be incorrect or too simple. (see item #4 below) "exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer"? Did they know something Turyshev didn't? Cute. Rather that learning about thermal emissivity properties, you instead decide to invent a conspiracy theory (see #5 below). The thermal coatings were documented, and *some* UV and radiation tests were performed on those coatings in laboratories, but they did not mimic the exact space environment the Pioneers experienced. So do we really know the amount of degradation experienced? What we do know is that most thermal coatings degrade by changing their optical reflectivity (absorptivity) but have very little change to the infrared emissivity. You could have read about this but did not. Increased absorptivity with no change in emissivity only reduces solar radiation pressure. It has no effect whatever on the fore/aft drive ratio from the internally generated RTG thermal energy. Think about it. The emissivity of the surfaces hasn't changed at all. And without the sunward drive asymmetry the thermal solution fails. You seem fixated upon the RTGs. Exactly! That's where the thermal solution fails. Read the paragraph you replied to. [ I will quote one more sentence just before. ] " Similar paints [13] have experienced both an increase and a decrease of up to 5% in infrared emissivity." "Approximately 25% of the RTG coated surfaces were exposed to solar irradiation. A calculation that takes into account the relative contribution of RTG heat to the total anisotropy yields a corresponding error figure of 25% in the overall error budget." It's impossible for the RTG's to provide anything like 25% of in the overall error budget. The uncertainties in the surface coating does **not** help the thermal solution at all. If absorptivity increases, emissivity normally increases as well and the emissivity of the fore surface will be greater than the aft surface. So the RTG's will be driven away from the sun by the internally produced thermal energy, which overwhelms any residual inward drive generated from solar thermal energy absorption. Let's get this out of the way. For the RTGs the effects of solar illumination and optical absorptivity/reflectivity are less important than for the HGA. This is because the energy input from the sun is about (using fsun=1367 W/m^ at 1AU) fsun = 54 W/m^2 at 5AU (Jupiter) = 14 W/m^2 at 10AU (Saturn) = 0.5 W/m^2 at 50AU (escape) of which 10-50% is absorbed by the white thermal coating (alpha=0.1-0.5). Whereas the total internal RTG heat flux escaping is approximately, frtg = 500 W/m^2 at launch = 400 W/m^2 at 50AU (escape) (basis: SNAP-19 Pioneer F & G final report for geometry and wattage) In other words, the internally generated heat is dominant over the received solar flux by a factor of 20-1000x. The total power generated by the Pioneers' RTGs is about 2500 W at beginning of life, and about 2000 W at end of life. Now, one can solve the radiation transfer for a RTG fin which is illuminated by sun. I did this long ago based on my research on spacecraft thermal properties and established thermal principles. This included two sides of the fins with different emissivities on each side, e1 and e2. After solving the equations, the resulting fractional flux anisotropy turns out to be, (f1 - f2)/faverage = (e1-e2)/eaverage The left side is the *fractional* flux difference, compared to the average of both sides, and the right side is the difference in emissivity, compared the average emissivity. This right hand number, by the way, is exactly the fractional +/- 5% increase/decrease discussed by Turyshev et al in 2012. So the total emitted anisotropy in a pure planar geometry would be, (P1 - P2) = 0.5*(2000W to 2500W) * (+/- 5%) = +/- (50 W to 63 W) By the way, this is *exactly* what Anderson et al derive in their section VIII.C. (they find a 1% emissivity difference produces 10W, I find 5% emissivity difference produces 50W: exactly the same). This is in a simplified pure planar flat plate geometry. In reality there are non-planar "cosine" effects as noted by Anderson that limit the total anisotropy (factor 61%), and as well only a fraction of the RTG surface was exposed to sunlight (factor 25%). The total anisotropy thus estimated is about 10 W, or about 1.5e-8 cm2/s radiation pressure acceleration. Compared to the thermally modeled acceleration of about 6.5e-8, this is about +/-23%. We can argue whether +/-23% or +/-25% is the right number. We can argue whether a more refined calculation can be done with improved view factors. But the basic physics is there. 1. There are known similar coatings which exhibit +/- 5% emissivity factors (cf. Broadway 1971) 2. Such an emissivity difference is enough to produce about +/-25% difference on the thermal emission model. 3. +/- 23% or +/- 25% does not qualitatively change the consistency beween the thermal and doppler solutions. Thus, it appears that the Turyshev et al (2012) model is on track. By the way, if you revere the Anderson et al work so much, why do you so handily discard Anderson's work in this case, and not others? Basically Turyshev's work agrees with Anderson's work exactly on the sensitivity of the RTGs to differential emissivity of a certain percentage. But while Anderson et al assumed only 1% differential, Turyshev et al showed that similar paints, under solar irradiation test could exhibit as much as 5% differential emissivity. Turyshev produced facts and citations. What did you do? [ re-inserting commentary from my follow-up post which you conveniently ignored ] The "onset" in those figures is an artifact of the way the analysis was done. The assumption made was not necessarily correct. We *know* there was additional non-gravitational acceleration due to the electronic compartments. This was not accounted for. Thus, we cannot rely upon the results in Anderson's Figure 6 or 7, since they assumed what you are now claiming to discover. But let’s summarize the issues you seem to be willfully ignoring. You claim these UPDATED points are irrelevant, but they are exactly on point, as noted below. 1. You continue to mention that somehow Turyshev’s 2012 work is about “solar thermal” or RTGs, when that is incorrect. It is about solar thermal and RTGs yes, but mostly about internally-generated thermal. When noted, you ignore or distract. 2. You continue to ask about what is in the Turyshev 2012 paper. I continue to refer you to it, but you ignore or distract. 3. You continue to ask about what is different between the Anderson 2001 and Turyshev 2012 works. I reply with detailed points, but you ignore or distract. 4. You continue to appeal to authority of Anderson’s work for thermal aspects. However, Anderson’s work in this topic is rather crude, and limited to point-like and plate-like approximations. Even Anderson noted that a higher fidelity model could be useful and Turyshev’s 2012 work accomplished it! You continue to conveniently ignore or distract from this point. More to the point: - Anderson made assumptions about the constancy of the "anomalous" force that were not born out by actual data Pioneer data. - Anderson made simplifying assumptions about the geometry and louvre which turned out not to be valid - Anderson made simplifying assumptions about how to estimate the optical coefficients at D=5AU, which turned out to artificially create the "onset" in his charts. 5. You continue to speculate how spacecraft thermal systems work based on your intuition. I’ve referred you to authoritative works, but you ignore. - specifically you continue to speculate about how optical absorptivity and emissivity are connected... without substantiation. - you also speculate about how much of an effect and emissivity difference would be without substantiation, when in fact, Turyshev's RTG differential emissivity estimates are close to a naive estimate. 6. You’ve speculated that somehow the curve of the anomaly “onset” from Anderson’s paper is somehow rock solid, when in fact it can be explained as an artifact of how the solar radiation pressure was solved by Anderson et al. (i.e. by assuming that all other forces were zero at D=5AU, including the anomaly) 7. To bolster your case that the anomaly “onset” curve is real, you’ve decided that analysts from the 1970s were special wizards with more skill than today’s analysts. In fact, the opposite was the case: analysts of the time were still learning the craft. I provided citations to published papers about this. You conveniently ignore it. 8. You’ve tried to discount Turyshev’s 2012 work by claiming that it’s an outlier and that every other researcher could not agree with a thermal original. But these are false. Other researchers were considering a thermal origin and consistent with Turyshev’s 2012 work. You continue to ignore this. 9. You’ve speculated that it should be easy to know about or replicate the thermal quantities of the Pioneer systems. When the error of this statement was pointed out, you ignored or distracted. 10. You’ve speculated about the performance of the Cassini spacecraft and argue by analogy that Pioneer and Cassini work can be interchanged blindly. That is not true: the spacecraft were quite different and in a careful treatment must be considered separately. You’ve been referred to papers about Cassini but continue to ignore. So I ask again: if this is so important to you, why don’t you stop ignoring important things? It's clear you have your own theory to hawk, and are willing to ignore anything that disagrees with it. So why should we listen to you? I was hoping you could provide me with some real proof that the anomaly doesn't exist, but sadly I've proven you wrong instead. Actually, I've provided details, citations to research, facts, quantitative analysis. I've pointed out where Anderson's work went wrong in several areas. You have for the most part conveniently ignored those points and provided your own unsubstantiated speculation instead. And yes, I do have a theory. But it's so far removed from current theory that I don't think they could coexist in the same forum. Please. There are many "new physics" theories that were stimulated by the Pioneer work and received recognition, publication and scrutiny. Those authors took the time to understand the details. You do not. Your conspiracy theories might validate your work in your own mind, but the truth is that tons of speculative work did get done. (example, Moffat's work on MOG). What other true theories do is quantify, use evidence, refer to previous work, build a substantiated case. And yes, speculate where the evidence allows. What you are doing is just speculating while willfully ignoring the evidence. Good luck with that. CM |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:18:50 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
I would like to add something, which I had not fully appreciated until now. It has to do with how the effective reflectivity of the high gain antenna was determined, but it has everything to do with the "onset" of the anomaly. As we know, there was some a priori information about the high gain antenna optical properties, but there was also the expectation of some degradation. Anderson et al (2002) demonstrate how this was done. In footnote [91], they note that based on pre-launch optical data, the expected "K0" factor was 1.71. "K" is the effective reflective+emissive forcing factor as shown in their equation (25). However, it was understood that the radiative properties of the dish could change. Therefore, the "K" factor was treated as a "solve-for" parameter. That is, based on a set of data, *assume* the non-gravitational accelerations are due to solar radiation pressure only, and solve for "K." This is stated explicitly in the sentence below Anderson et al's equation (26). Namely, that the non-gravitational acceleration reported in equation (26) near Jupiter of 70 +/- 3.5 x 10^{-8} cm/s2, is set equal to the solar radiation pressure formula in equation (25), resulting in K = 1.77. Note that this is different than the pre-launch value, K0=1.71. Thus, there is an *assumption* that no other non-gravitational forces are acting at 5AU. None from gas leaks. None from emission from compartments. None from RTG emission. None from any "anomaly." Any anomaly was essentially zeroed out by this analysis technique. It's not a surprise that the "anomaly" in Anderson's Figures 6 & 7 are nearly zero near 5AU. That's because the anomaly was set to zero at 5 AU explicitly in the analysis. The "onset" in those figures is an artifact of the way the analysis was done. The assumption made was not necessarily correct. We *know* there was additional non-gravitational acceleration due to the electronic compartments. This was not accounted for. Thus, we cannot rely upon the results in Anderson's Figure 6 or 7, since they assumed what you are now claiming to discover. http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pioneer4.html demonstrates that I'm not "claiming to discover" any such thing. But you've just shot yourself in the foot by acknowledging the existence of an onset. Analysts involved in describing the Pioneer anomaly set the zero mark for the onset at around 5 AU, which gave a positive anomaly for all radii beyond that point. If zero was set at i.e. 20 AU the anomaly would be negative at lesser radii, and that would throw your thermal solution out the window. Your challenge would then be to explain a **negative** anomaly where Pioneer is anomalously accelerated away from the sun. Or if the zero mark was set at 1 AU the anomaly would increase by 1.1e-6 m/s^2 to 1.10874e-6 m/s^2. But wherever the zero mark is set the same anomaly is still present. The reason 5 AU was chosen as zero is because it gave the best fit according to current theory. The mismatch between my theory and current theory is always exactly the same regardless of where the zero mark is set. ----- Max Keon |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 6:02:16 PM UTC+10, wrote:
--- --- And yes, I do have a theory. But it's so far removed from current theory that I don't think they could coexist in the same forum. The tendency would be to attempt to unify the two and that's impossible. So I'm left with a dilemma. --- --- ... a personal question perhaps very stupid for Max Keon .. .. if i understood well , he (MK) wants to explain an acceleration anomaly making the sun with a bigger mass than suspected-one .. if that-bigger sun- was true , all solar sistem should be changed , but our anomaly is rising relatively to the unchanged sistem which we observe now .. something is not turning well , for me.. In the zero origin universe, the speed of light, passage of time and linear measurements are all interlinked. Nothing is constant and that makes the math very complicated. A different combination of the three variables are required for every step of the way throughout Pioneer's travels. The true distance to Pioneer can only be established through the compounding results. http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/pneer-fh.exe is an application file which describes the processes involved for each step. The Pioneer anomaly is the difference between these results and those generated by current theory. Unfortunately it's written in English and can't be directly converted to your language. So I've listed the set of figures generated for close to 1 AU radius from the sun, and I've included a description of the math involved for each element. You may be able to follow the graph plot for the entire anomaly if this can be converted to your language. The file is guaranteed clean. Norton will give it an immediate tick of approval if you happen to be using that software. --- 41973.41849524161 c per sun at 1.004544 AU radius. SQR(G * M / r / t) M = sun's mass (1.99e30 kg) r = radius from center of mass t is the time constant (.5 in this case) 299993450.975931 total c at this point in space. Total light speed = cs + cu cs = light speed contribution from the sun. cu = light speed contribution from the universe. 150681600000 normal radius (1). normal radius = current radius + ds ds = sun radius = 697600000 meters. Calculations are in sun radius steps. 150701660108.3475 adjusted radius (2). store1 holds the adjusted radius. store1 = store1 + ds * meter meter = sqr((cs + cu) / cu) Each step length is adjusted accordingly. 20060108.34747314 meter difference. Extended radius carried in store1 - normal radius. (less than a GPS satellite orbit radius increase in this case) 5.845995331137613D-03 gforce(1) m/sec^2. 5.844894317653062D-03 gforce(2) m/sec^2. gforce(1) is based on the normal sun mass and observed radius. gforce(2) is based on the increased sun mass and extended radius. -1.101013484551029D-06 gforce(2) - gforce(1). 29679.6888475662 orbital speed for sun mass at apparent radius. (G*M/r1)^.5 29678.8691972616 orbital speed for increased mass at true radius. (G*Mx/r2)^.5 (Mx=1.990155e30 kg) --- Orbital speed difference for this radius is only .82 m/sec. If an observer at 1 AU from the sun measures the orbit radius as being 150681600000 meters the orbital speed will be .82 m/sec slower than it should be. Using the normal sun mass (1.99e30 kg) that's equivalent to an orbit radius error of only 8,323 km. That difference would be undetectable in the earth's orbit radius. The web page is an essential component here as well, and it can be translated. http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pioneer4.html And thanks for asking the question. ----- Max Keon |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
Il giorno mercoledì 14 giugno 2017 04:17:03 UTC+2, ha scritto:
On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 6:02:16 PM UTC+10, wrote: --- --- And yes, I do have a theory. But it's so far removed from current theory that I don't think they could coexist in the same forum. The tendency would be to attempt to unify the two and that's impossible. So I'm left with a dilemma. --- --- ... a personal question perhaps very stupid for Max Keon .. .. if i understood well , he (MK) wants to explain an acceleration anomaly making the sun with a bigger mass than suspected-one .. if that-bigger sun- was true , all solar sistem should be changed , but our anomaly is rising relatively to the unchanged sistem which we observe now .. something is not turning well , for me.. In the zero origin universe, the speed of light, passage of time and linear measurements are all interlinked. Nothing is constant and that makes the math very complicated. A different combination of the three variables are required for every step of the way throughout Pioneer's travels. The true distance to Pioneer can only be established through the compounding results. http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/pneer-fh.exe is an application file which describes the processes involved for each step. The Pioneer anomaly is the difference between these results and those generated by current theory. Unfortunately it's written in English and can't be directly converted to your language. So I've listed the set of figures generated for close to 1 AU radius from the sun, and I've included a description of the math involved for each element. You may be able to follow the graph plot for the entire anomaly if this can be converted to your language. The file is guaranteed clean. Norton will give it an immediate tick of approval if you happen to be using that software. --- 41973.41849524161 c per sun at 1.004544 AU radius. SQR(G * M / r / t) M = sun's mass (1.99e30 kg) r = radius from center of mass t is the time constant (.5 in this case) 299993450.975931 total c at this point in space. Total light speed = cs + cu cs = light speed contribution from the sun. cu = light speed contribution from the universe. 150681600000 normal radius (1). normal radius = current radius + ds ds = sun radius = 697600000 meters. Calculations are in sun radius steps. 150701660108.3475 adjusted radius (2). store1 holds the adjusted radius. store1 = store1 + ds * meter meter = sqr((cs + cu) / cu) Each step length is adjusted accordingly. 20060108.34747314 meter difference. Extended radius carried in store1 - normal radius. (less than a GPS satellite orbit radius increase in this case) 5.845995331137613D-03 gforce(1) m/sec^2. 5.844894317653062D-03 gforce(2) m/sec^2. gforce(1) is based on the normal sun mass and observed radius. gforce(2) is based on the increased sun mass and extended radius. -1.101013484551029D-06 gforce(2) - gforce(1). 29679.6888475662 orbital speed for sun mass at apparent radius. (G*M/r1)^.5 29678.8691972616 orbital speed for increased mass at true radius. (G*Mx/r2)^.5 (Mx=1.990155e30 kg) --- Orbital speed difference for this radius is only .82 m/sec. If an observer at 1 AU from the sun measures the orbit radius as being 150681600000 meters the orbital speed will be .82 m/sec slower than it should be. Using the normal sun mass (1.99e30 kg) that's equivalent to an orbit radius error of only 8,323 km. That difference would be undetectable in the earth's orbit radius. The web page is an essential component here as well, and it can be translated. http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pioneer4.html And thanks for asking the question. ----- Max Keon ... thanks for your answear but my scool 'level don't admit your operations ...it admits only curiousities .. ( i trust in your explications ..i was thinking that in astronomy , where all seems so exactly in our planet' sistem , that monstreous anomaly had to be reveiled in advance and in other situations..) |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 7:13:29 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 8:38:54 PM UTC-4, wrote: On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:36:34 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote: --- --- You seem fixated upon the RTGs. Exactly! That's where the thermal solution fails. Read the paragraph you replied to. [ I will quote one more sentence just before. ] " Similar paints [13] have experienced both an increase and a decrease of up to 5% in infrared emissivity." "Approximately 25% of the RTG coated surfaces were exposed to solar irradiation. A calculation that takes into account the relative contribution of RTG heat to the total anisotropy yields a corresponding error figure of 25% in the overall error budget." It's impossible for the RTG's to provide anything like 25% of in the overall error budget. The uncertainties in the surface coating does **not** help the thermal solution at all. If absorptivity increases, emissivity normally increases as well and the emissivity of the fore surface will be greater than the aft surface. So the RTG's will be driven away from the sun by the internally produced thermal energy, which overwhelms any residual inward drive generated from solar thermal energy absorption. Let's get this out of the way. For the RTGs the effects of solar illumination and optical absorptivity/reflectivity are less important than for the HGA. This is because the energy input from the sun is about (using fsun=1367 W/m^ at 1AU) fsun = 54 W/m^2 at 5AU (Jupiter) = 14 W/m^2 at 10AU (Saturn) = 0.5 W/m^2 at 50AU (escape) of which 10-50% is absorbed by the white thermal coating (alpha=0.1-0.5). Whereas the total internal RTG heat flux escaping is approximately, frtg = 500 W/m^2 at launch = 400 W/m^2 at 50AU (escape) (basis: SNAP-19 Pioneer F & G final report for geometry and wattage) In other words, the internally generated heat is dominant over the received solar flux by a factor of 20-1000x. The total power generated by the Pioneers' RTGs is about 2500 W at beginning of life, and about 2000 W at end of life. Now, one can solve the radiation transfer for a RTG fin which is illuminated by sun. I did this long ago based on my research on spacecraft thermal properties and established thermal principles. This included two sides of the fins with different emissivities on each side, e1 and e2. After solving the equations, the resulting fractional flux anisotropy turns out to be, (f1 - f2)/faverage = (e1-e2)/eaverage The left side is the *fractional* flux difference, compared to the average of both sides, and the right side is the difference in emissivity, compared the average emissivity. This right hand number, by the way, is exactly the fractional +/- 5% increase/decrease discussed by Turyshev et al in 2012. So the total emitted anisotropy in a pure planar geometry would be, (P1 - P2) = 0.5*(2000W to 2500W) * (+/- 5%) = +/- (50 W to 63 W) By the way, this is *exactly* what Anderson et al derive in their section VIII.C. (they find a 1% emissivity difference produces 10W, I find 5% emissivity difference produces 50W: exactly the same). I would still like to know how Turyshev arrived at 5% emissivity reduction generated from solar radiation when Anderson has very soundly rejected such a huge amount. Anderson's analysis in section V111.C; "Differential emissivity of the RTG's" isn't handwaving by any means. It's based on **very sound logic**. So whether or not Turyshev had evidence that the emissivity of similar surface coatings degrade by 5% in a solar environment is irrelevant because **that's not what happened here**. And even if it was a possibility the error margin is increased to only just barely encapsulate the anomaly. The odds on the RTG surface coating being the one with the -5% emissivity would be at most 1 in 20. How does that prove the Pioneer anomaly extinct beyond any doubt? That's not how it's supposed to work. ----- Max Keon |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
I note that you conveniently deleted and ignored this crucial discussion.
*Anderson made simplifying assumptions that turned out to be incorrect or too simple. I note no response. (see item #4 below) I would still like to know how Turyshev arrived at 5% emissivity reduction generated from solar radiation... If you had bothered to the check the footnote in Turyshev et al's text, you might have. (see item #2 below). It’s also probably because the Anderson authors were exclusively navigation analysts, and did not have significant thermal experience. Anderson's analysis in section V111.C; "Differential emissivity of the RTG's" isn't handwaving by any means. It's based on **very sound logic**. Really? Let’s see what is argued in that section. Paragraph 1. Introduction. Paragraph 2. “Given our knowledge of the solar wind and the interplanetary dust (see Section XI A), we find that this amount of a radiant change would be difficult to explain, even if it were of the right sign.” Note, no substantiation or quantitative reasoning is given for this statement. No sound logic. Paragraph 3. Conclusions based on optical lenses on Voyager. No quantitative evidence provided. No reasoning of why Voyager optical lenses apply to Pioneer RTG infrared thermal coatings. Speculation only upon solar wind / dust and not solar UV damage. No sound logic. Paragraph 4. Discussion based upon radiation damage in the Jupiter environment. No discussion of solar UV damage. Paragraph 5. Useful quantitative discussion of the effects of IR emissivity changes, but no quantitative motivation for the 1% value chosen. No sound logic. Paragraph 6. Discussion of the temporal behavior of an RTG emissivity based effect. Anderson rules out a differential emissivity effect because the “anomaly” is constant. However, as found by Turyshev Toth Ellis & Markwardt (2010), there *is* evidence for a temporally varying acceleration. So the fundamental assumption of Anderson turned out to be incorrect. No sound logic. Therefore, while much of this discussion by Anderson et al was *plausible* at the time, it was still mostly unmotivated and lacking in quantitative basis. And, none of what Anderson discusses really pertains to solar UV damage which is the primary degradation mechanism identified in Turyshev et al (2012) and Broadway (1971). Therefore you are incorrect (see item #4 below) Furthermore, while Anderson et al were trying to discount the RTGs as the source of the *total* Pioneer “anomaly” magnitude, Turyshev et al (2012) only attempted to tally an uncertainty due to RTG coating degradations, which is a smaller fraction than the full anomaly. They didn’t “need” to reach 100% anomaly level, as Anderson did to explain the anomaly. So whether or not Turyshev had evidence that the emissivity of similar surface coatings degrade by 5% in a solar environment is irrelevant because **that's not what happened here**. I note you have absolutely zero evidence of this. Anderson et al (2002) never identifies whether or not a 5% degradation could occur due to solar UV damage. (see item #4 below) And even if it was a possibility the error margin is increased to only just barely encapsulate the anomaly. You are incorrect. Figure 4 of Turyshev et al (2012) demonstrates that there is very significant overlap between the 1-sigma thermal solution and the 1-sigma doppler solution. You could have read about this but did not (see item #2 below). The odds on the RTG surface coating being the one with the -5% emissivity would be at most 1 in 20. The change of IR emissivity of about 5% was actually measured in several samples, after only a few hundred equivalent sun hours of exposure. This was not a rare change. And bear in mind that the cruise to Jupiter takes many *thousands* of hours. So your claim of 1 in 20 is unsubstantiated. How does that prove the Pioneer anomaly extinct beyond any doubt? You have the wrong statistical standard. If the thermal and Doppler solutions overlap by about 50% at the 1-sigma confidence level, then they are essentially consistent with each other. The Pioneer data are consistent with “standard physics,” so there is no statistical need to invoke an anomaly. [ From your other message ] But you've just shot yourself in the foot by acknowledging the existence of an onset. I never claimed there was no "onset," but that those historical figures were presented by Anderson with little or no substantiation, and with no way to verify. As I pointed out, analysts at the time were working with more limited knowledge, and the setting of the solar constant K at 5 AU may have influenced the appearance of an “onset.” Analysts involved in describing the Pioneer anomaly set the zero mark for the onset at around 5 AU, which gave a positive anomaly for all radii beyond that point. If zero was set at i.e. 20 AU the anomaly would be negative at lesser radii, and that would throw your thermal solution out the window. You are correct that the choice of when/where to set the solar reflectivity constant K of the Pioneer will set the zero point of the anomaly. Anderson et al (2002) was not really aware of how much directional heat flux was present, which would have erroneously biased that selection. The presence of the thermal solution doesn’t throw anything out the window. The Turyshev authors were well aware that by estimating spacecraft properties using early or beginning-of-life data, could bias the solution. This is why they jointly re-solved the doppler and thermal equations and spacecraft parameters. The reason 5 AU was chosen as zero is because it gave the best fit according to current theory. I note that you did not substantiate this claim. Anderson et al (2002) presented this selection as a fait accompli without explanation. (item #4 below) .... Let’s summarize the issues you seem to be willfully ignoring. 1. You continue to mention that somehow Turyshev’s 2012 work is about “solar thermal” or RTGs, when that is incorrect. It is about solar thermal and RTGs yes, but mostly about internally-generated thermal. When noted, you ignore or distract. 2. You continue to ask about what is in the Turyshev 2012 paper. I continue to refer you to it, but you ignore or distract. 3. You continue to ask about what is different between the Anderson 2001 and Turyshev 2012 works. I reply with detailed points, but you ignore or distract. 4. You continue to appeal to authority of Anderson’s work for thermal aspects. However, Anderson’s work in this topic is rather crude, and limited to point-like and plate-like approximations. Even Anderson noted that a higher fidelity model could be useful and Turyshev’s 2012 work accomplished it! You continue to conveniently ignore or distract from this point. More to the point: - Anderson made assumptions about the constancy of the "anomalous" force that were not born out by actual data Pioneer data. - Anderson made simplifying assumptions about the geometry and louvre which turned out not to be valid - Anderson made simplifying assumptions about how to estimate the optical coefficients at D=5AU, which turned out to artificially create the "onset" in his charts. - Anderson made several claims about RTG thermal performance which were quantitatively unsubstantiated and irrelevant to the actually issues of how much degradation the RTG coatings experienced. 5. You continue to speculate how spacecraft thermal systems work based on your intuition. I’ve referred you to authoritative works, but you ignore. - specifically you continue to speculate about how optical absorptivity and emissivity are connected... without substantiation. - you also speculate about how much of an effect and emissivity difference would be without substantiation, when in fact, Turyshev's RTG differential emissivity estimates are close to a naive estimate. 6. You’ve speculated that somehow the curve of the anomaly “onset” from Anderson’s paper is somehow rock solid, when in fact it can be explained as an artifact of how the solar radiation pressure was solved by Anderson et al. (i.e. by assuming that all other forces were zero at D=5AU, including the anomaly) 7. To bolster your case that the anomaly “onset” curve is real, you’ve decided that analysts from the 1970s were special wizards with more skill than today’s analysts. In fact, the opposite was the case: analysts of the time were still learning the craft. I provided citations to published papers about this. You conveniently ignore it. 8. You’ve tried to discount Turyshev’s 2012 work by claiming that it’s an outlier and that every other researcher could not agree with a thermal original. But these are false. Other researchers were considering a thermal origin and consistent with Turyshev’s 2012 work. You continue to ignore this. 9. You’ve speculated that it should be easy to know about or replicate the thermal quantities of the Pioneer systems. When the error of this statement was pointed out, you ignored or distracted. 10. You’ve speculated about the performance of the Cassini spacecraft and argue by analogy that Pioneer and Cassini work can be interchanged blindly. That is not true: the spacecraft were quite different and in a careful treatment must be considered separately. You’ve been referred to papers about Cassini but continue to ignore. So I ask again: if this is so important to you, why don’t you stop ignoring important things? It's clear you have your own theory to hawk, and are willing to ignore anything that disagrees with it. So why should we listen to you? CM |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 11:54:33 PM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
I note that you conveniently deleted and ignored this crucial discussion. Anderson made simplifying assumptions that turned out to be incorrect or too simple. I note no response. (see item #4 below) I would still like to know how Turyshev arrived at 5% emissivity reduction generated from solar radiation... If you had bothered to the check the footnote in Turyshev et al's text, you might have. (see item #2 below). It's also probably because the Anderson authors were exclusively navigation analysts, and did not have significant thermal experience. Anderson's analysis in section V111.C; "Differential emissivity of the RTG's" isn't handwaving by any means. It's based on **very sound logic**. Really? Let's see what is argued in that section. Paragraph 1. Introduction. Paragraph 2. "Given our knowledge of the solar wind and the interplanetary dust (see Section XI A), we find that this amount of a radiant change would be difficult to explain, even if it were of the right sign." Note, no substantiation or quantitative reasoning is given for this statement. No sound logic. A couple of sentences extracted from a paragraph is useless. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5 Section V111.C. tells the story properly. --- --- Paragraph 6. Discussion of the temporal behavior of an RTG emissivity based effect. Anderson rules out a differential emissivity effect because the "anomaly" is constant. However, as found by Turyshev Toth Ellis & Markwardt (2010), there *is* evidence for a temporally varying acceleration. So the fundamental assumption of Anderson turned out to be incorrect. No sound logic. FIG.6 in Anderson's paper shows a reducing anomaly with time. Therefore, while much of this discussion by Anderson et al was *plausible* at the time, it was still mostly unmotivated and lacking in quantitative basis. And, none of what Anderson discusses really pertains to solar UV damage which is the primary degradation mechanism identified in Turyshev et al (2012) and Broadway (1971). Therefore you are incorrect (see item #4 below) Furthermore, while Anderson et al were trying to discount the RTGs as the source of the *total* Pioneer "anomaly" magnitude, Turyshev et al (2012) only attempted to tally an uncertainty due to RTG coating degradations, which is a smaller fraction than the full anomaly. They didn't "need" to reach 100% anomaly level, as Anderson did to explain the anomaly. Read his paper. It's clear to me that Anderson set a "100% anomaly level" as an example. He was well aware that there were other areas of concern. He gave **an example** for a -1% relative fore/aft emissivity on the RTG surfaces as well, which resulted in 10 watts of drive toward the sun. -10% emissivity fore/aft difference would generate 100 watts, which would be enough to counteract the entire anomaly. You yourself gave a 50 watt sunward drive for -5% emissivity change on the sun facing surface, so Anderson was obviously using exactly the same math then as you are today. So whether or not Turyshev had evidence that the emissivity of similar surface coatings degrade by 5% in a solar environment is irrelevant because **that's not what happened here**. I note you have absolutely zero evidence of this. Anderson et al 2002) never identifies whether or not a 5% degradation could occur due to solar UV damage. (see item #4 below) And even if it was a possibility the error margin is increased to only just barely encapsulate the anomaly. You are incorrect. Figure 4 of Turyshev et al (2012) demonstrates that there is very significant overlap between the 1-sigma thermal solution and the 1-sigma doppler solution. You could have read about this but did not (see item #2 below). The odds on the RTG surface coating being the one with the -5% emissivity would be at most 1 in 20. The change of IR emissivity of about 5% was actually measured in several samples, after only a few hundred equivalent sun hours of exposure. This was not a rare change. And bear in mind that the cruise to Jupiter takes many *thousands* of hours. Equivalent at what radius? Whatever the case the change in emissivity is obviously not linear. I would expect that after a few hundred hours of solar radiation the process will have slowed considerably. If the process was linear, it wouldn't instantly stop at 5% change, and the consequences would be easily noted as a constantly increasing or decreasing anomaly, depending on the sign. Increasingly -x% emissivity change on the RTG sun facing surfaces, at the rate you have described, would give a very obvious rising anomaly per time. Increasingly +x% would give an equivalent falling anomaly. According to FIG.3 from Turyshev's paper, and FIGs 6 and 7 from Anderson's paper the anomalous acceleration reduces over time (beyond 20 AU for Anderson). Which is evidence that the RTG surface coating is of the +x% variety. That's only if the need arises of course. So your claim of 1 in 20 is unsubstantiated. How does that prove the Pioneer anomaly extinct beyond any doubt? You have the wrong statistical standard. If the thermal and Doppler solutions overlap by about 50% at the 1-sigma confidence level, then they are essentially consistent with each other. The Pioneer data are consistent with "standard physics," so there is no statistical need to invoke an anomaly. I'm aware that Turyshev required only -2.5% emissivity differential, giving 25 watts of drive from the RTG's, which adds enough to the total to explain the anomaly. If the error bar was from 0% to -5% that gives a 50\50 chance that the anomaly doesn't exist. But since the range of coatings extends to -5% the confidence level becomes 100% . The problem here is that the error bar is from +5% to -5% . So the confidence level goes back 50% again. You have clearly failed to meet the conditions set out in your statistical standard. This is another area where the thermal solution fails: If the entire range of RTG surface coating possibilities were tested, on a graph depicting solar induced emissivity changes between +5% and -5% , how would they be distributed? Would the distribution be uniform right up to the limits of the error bar, or would the graph be more realistic and follow more of a sinewave shape where the distribution around the limits is sparse, with the vast majority falling around the central point (0%) ? Of course it would. Your 50\50 chance has diminished considerably. [ From your other message ] But you've just shot yourself in the foot by acknowledging the existence of an onset. I never claimed there was no "onset," but that those historical figures were presented by Anderson with little or no substantiation, and with no way to verify. As I pointed out, analysts at the time were working with more limited knowledge, and the setting of the solar constant K at 5 AU may have influenced the appearance of an "onset." Analysts involved in describing the Pioneer anomaly set the zero mark for the onset at around 5 AU, which gave a positive anomaly for all radii beyond that point. If zero was set at i.e. 20 AU the anomaly would be negative at lesser radii, and that would throw your thermal solution out the window. You are correct that the choice of when/where to set the solar reflectivity constant K of the Pioneer will set the zero point of the anomaly. Anderson et al (2002) was not really aware of how much directional heat flux was present, which would have erroneously biased that selection. The presence of the thermal solution doesn't throw anything out the window. The **thermal solution** is thrown out the window if the zero mark for the onset is set at 20 AU because the anomaly would be entirely negative and the anomalous acceleration **away** from the sun would need to be explained. If the zero mark is set at 1 AU the anomaly would be substantially greater than it is, thus creating a much greater problem for the thermal solution. The Turyshev authors were well aware that by estimating spacecraft properties using early or beginning-of-life data, could bias the solution. This is why they jointly re-solved the doppler and thermal equations and spacecraft parameters. FIG.3 in Turyshev's paper sets the anomalous acceleration for the beginning of the mission at around 1.43e-9 m/s^2. It falls to 8.74e-10 m/s^2 at around 10 AU, falling to less than 6e-10 m/s^2 just prior to 75 AU. Zero for the "solar reflectivity constant" obviously has nothing to do with the zero used to counteract the Pioneer anomaly. The reason 5 AU was chosen as zero is because it gave the best fit according to current theory. I note that you did not substantiate this claim. Anderson et al (2002) presented this selection as a fait accompli without explanation. (item #4 below) ... Let's summarize the issues you seem to be willfully ignoring. --- (snipping irrelevant diversionary tactic) --- So I ask again: if this is so important to you, why don't you stop ignoring important things? It's clear you have your own theory to hawk, and are willing to ignore anything that disagrees with it. So why should we listen to you? Well if I had never come across the zero origin concept you would probably never know that I existed. It's doubtful that our paths would ever cross. Unfortunately there's a very sinister message embedded in that theory and that's what drives me to annoy you. Incidentally, that theory generates a curve which is a perfect match with the Pioneer anomaly as was described by those early analysts who's contributions you deem unreliable because they were too inexperienced. But I find it hard to believe that NASA would launch a billion dollar mission while the analysts are asking which button to push. They would have known **exactly** what they were doing. That was proven when they reported the anomaly. They weren't required to explain how or why it was there, they only reported what they found. According to my theory, in current theory, solar radiation pressure is overestimated to overcome the discrepancy between the two theories at a radius of 5 AU from the sun. At that radius the increasing error per lesser radius can be concealed within the environment local to the sun. But from 5 AU outward, no such concealment mechanism exists and Pioneer begins an **apparent** acceleration toward the sun. The zero mark can be set anywhere by adopting the apparent (according to current theory) solar radiation pressure at that point as the standard. At around 12.6 AU the gforce difference between the two theories is zero. I have suggested that this should be the zero mark for current theory, but the true zero line is the Pioneer anomaly as generated by my theory. It traces a path back to the sun, which passes the 1 AU mark at 1.1e-6 m/sec^2. Setting a fixed zero mark at this point would generate a relatively enormous anomaly. There's no doubt at all that the Pioneer anomaly is very much alive and well. ----- Max Keon |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pioneer Anomaly | [email protected] | Policy | 7 | July 21st 07 09:44 PM |
30 Years of Pioneer Spacecraft Data Rescued: The Planetary Society Enables Study of the Mysterious Pioneer Anomaly | [email protected] | News | 0 | June 6th 06 05:35 PM |
Pioneer anomaly | Oz | Research | 10 | October 1st 05 09:40 AM |
The Pioneer Anomaly | Mark F. | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | December 25th 04 02:30 PM |