|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#811
July 5th 04, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#812
July 5th 04, 08:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Charleston" wrote in message news:hM8zc.26612$fZ1.20857@fed1read03...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote: "Charleston" wrote: "LaDonna Wyss" wrote:. Much snipped here and there but heck how many times do you need to read the same thing anyway? The fire actually started in the +yaw thruster of the Service Module, and the fire started 22 minutes before NASA claims it did. If there was a fire involving commands to the Service Module RCS it would have burned up the simulators not the Service Module. Surely it would have smoked up a storm and escaped the Service Module onto the platforms at levels A7 and A8? No it would have burned up the work area around the Service Module. Again, if you ever find your way to the National Archives, you will find multiple documents discussing fire damage to Sector One of the Service Module, damage technicians were at a loss to explain. Don't insult me. Explain the use of the quad simulators then we can go from there. I am incredulous. How can you pretend to speak so authoritatively about something you obviously know nothing about? What do you MEAN Gus didn't fire any RCS thrusters? www.challengerdisaster.info or just download this Word document directly. http://www.challengerdisaster.info/A...01132-1151.doc Daniel OK, I'm on limited time at the moment so I will have to go point-by-point later this evening when my roommate isn't here. However, I do have points off the top of my head: 1. WHY are you raising questions from weeks ago? Did you just now see the posts? 2. You've provided NO documentation that the RCS itself was being simulated. They were "LOAD" simulators--meaning, they were simulating POWER, not movement. 3. Why do you think the simulators would have been involved? And, you said, well where is the burn damage to the S-11 switch. Well, let me throw that back at you: Where was the burn damage to the cryo stir switch on Apollo 13? There WAS none. Why? Because THAT'S NOT WHERE THE PROBLEM WAS! Yes, turning on the fans created the environment for the explosion, but why would you expect to see damage to the switch that initiated the incident? Same thing with the fire. Yes, the S-11 switch ultimately caused the problem, however, the fire did not START with the S-11 switch. Do you not understand basic electricity? If you have bad wiring in your house, and because you turn on a lamp, and that lamp causes an overload that ultimately burns down your house, just because the switch on the lamp socket is not burned does NOT mean it wasn't the problem! Daniel, you said yourself you do not know about this particular realm of investigation. Why in the world would you spend a week reading the Review Board Report and then assert yourself as a fire expert? Why don't you do what I have done, and interview electricians, technicians, engineers, etc., and then get back to me in six months or so? You are asserting theories that have no basis in FACT. You are ASSUMING a fire would originate with the switch. No such evidence is available, nor has anyone with whom I have spoken asserted such a thing. It's like Scott has said more than once--if someone shorts your ignition switch, and your car goes up in flames, can you say that because the fire started in the battery the ignition switch was not the problem? NO! Quite the opposite. Prove the valves were being simulated (which they were not.) Try using something OTHER than a Block II diagram--or are you not aware that not only was the MDC changed for Block II, but the umbilical was moved 180 degrees, and the SM sectors were swapped? You are confusing "load" simulation with "valve" simulation. Further, you posted a few statements. Not one of them talks about the cable being on fire. I specifically referenced those statements. Where are they? AND, SOMEONE in here--I don't recall who--talked about what would be better, lying to the families, or having them hear about pulmonary edema, slow demises, etc. Well, the answer is: The truth is NEVER EVER as bad as the lies, questions, suspicions, and cover-ups. Should not the fact that families are asking questions almost four decades later tell you that? If you've never had a loved one die under questionable circumstances, then you have no clue what they are enduring. But as an investigative reporter told me not long ago on the telephone, the cover-up is ALWAYS worse than the lie. ALWAYS. Tell the families the TRUTH. Let THEM decide if it was worth it. More later. LaDonna
|
|
#813
July 5th 04, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"john_thomas_maxson" wrote:
Doug... wrote: OM wrote: Actually, I *think* that what scott and his followers are referring to is a Service Module RCS hot-fire. IIRC, even on Block I capsules, they never did a hot fire on the CM's RCS until fairly shortly before separating from the SM. I think you are correct from what I have read with CM RCS system B thrusters never being used unless system A failed just prior to reentry (which never happened AFAIK). snip Bottom Line: The RCS fuel is nasty stuff, The oxidizer is pleasant stuff, huh?;-) Remember, though, that what was later called the "wet CDDT" (the full dress rehearsal of the countdown, including propellant loading, etc.) had just been completed on AS-204 a few days prior to the fatal Plugs- Out Test. (The Schirra crew was inside CSM 012 for portions of that earlier test.) If I'm not mistaken, the wet CDDT included the fueling of all the booster and spacecraft systems (including the CSM's cryogenics, the SPS propellants and the RCS propellants). I know that, once you loaded the hydrazine/nitrogen tetroxide fuels, you had a finite remaining lifetime of the propulsion systems, since the fuels were corrosive to the seals. What I'm not at all certain of is whether or not the SPS and RCS tanks were emptied and re-filled between the CDDT and the actual launch. The cryogenics were definitely emptied and later refilled -- does anyone have a definitive answer for the SPS and RCS tanks? Not me, but I will take a look again in the report. The point is that the RCS tanks were indeed filled for the earlier wet CDDT, and that they *may* have still been filled during the Plugs-Out Test. But since they weren't going to retract the White Room or the access platforms for the Plugs-Out Test, but still wanted to exercise the procedures for the hot fire test, the RCS was disabled and the hand controllers wired into an RCS response simulator for the Plugs-Out Test. Since the S-11 switch and the hand controllers (among other things) all fed into the wiring that was redirected to the response simulator, there is *absolutely* no way that any manipulation of them could *possibly* have caused any response of any kind back in the SM. Doug, you've alleged with an authoritative air of certainty that "the RCS was disabled and the hand controllers wired into an RCS response simulator for the Plugs-Out Test." The status of the wet CDDT is just as relevant as anything else above and it needs to be resolved. Was it limited in its level of wetness (don't laugh please)? I can understand loading the cryogens aboard along with the kerosene, but not the hypergols. Perhaps they did, but I'd like to see it in writing somewhere. If you expect us to believe this, surely you owe us a detailed and responsible explanation of the electrical route followed by the crew commands to/from this "RCS response simulator," stating precisely where it was located relative to the crew and the CM umbilical. The "Plugs Out test" was reportedly a non-hazardous test. To have any hazardous propellants onboard or to have any high energy tanks (helium at 4100 psi) was considered hazardous at the time. I think a important issue regarding the test's actual status is what the crew said at the time they performed the RCS static test. When you read through the transcript that LaDonna provided here, http://www.challengerdisaster.info/L...20Timeline.htm you will note that the crew was responding to the Spacecraft Test Conductor (STC) as they performed their work. Ed White read back operational values in "real-time" as follows. "MSTC: Get the quad pressure and temperature. Ed, on panel 12, give quad indications on A, B, C, D, helium, manifold pressure, and helium temperature. Ed: A about 20 (He pressure), manifold is 30, He temp is 200. S/C static fire complete. Ed: Ready for B? Ed: Roger, B is 30 30 200 Ed: C is 25 30 200 Ed: D is 25 30 200" Looking at these values, as they relate to the RCS functional flow quad diagram he http://www.challengerdisaster.info/s...ram_quad_a.jpg we can see the three measurements that Ed White read back are, the helium tank temperature; the helium tank pressure; and the helium common manifold pressure; respectively. The helium tank pressures were reported by White as: 20, 30, 25, and 25. Nominal values are 1000 to 4,100 psi. Helium tank temperatures were reported as 200, 200, 200, and 200, but this must be converted from psi using a table (page 588 of the report) and this converts to exactly 75 degrees F. The helium tank pressure and temperature are used to determine the percent of helium in the tank. Using the values above, we can conclude the tank was dry. I will supply the table if anyone really wants to see it. I have given a verifiable reference in any event. The helium manifold pressure reported by Ed White was 30, 30, 30, and 30. In other words the manifold pressure values are higher than the source helium tank with one exception. Is this even possible? It suggests that the values being used are simulated. It could mean however that all four quads were dry or depleted of their helium supply and thus incapable of significantly pressurizing the system. I doubt all manifold pressures values would be the same and that they could be higher than the source that is pressurizing the system in any event. If however, the values Ed White read were real, then the helium manifold pressure would have triggered a Caution and Warning light on MDC panel 10 because the manifold pressure was under its low end operating pressure of 155 psi (all four manifold values were read back as 30). If there was in fact 30 psi of helium in the common helium manifold what would it have done to the empty propellant tank bladders and their diffusers? I conclude the system was likely dry and Ed knew that he was in fact reading back either simulated or dry equipment values. The lack of a Caution and Warning light on any of the four quads due to common manifold underpressure needs to be explained. Daniel
|
|
#815
July 5th 04, 09:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Charleston" wrote in message news:fjxxc.6739$fZ1.1829@fed1read03...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote:. Ummm, since you have "worked with electricity for a long time" then you must realize that on a circuit containing such a short, a fire can start at the point of the short, or at any place along that circuit, or in multiple places along the circuit. You are assuming the fire started behind Panel 8 behind or around the A/C roll switch. Why would anyone assume the fire started behinf MDC Panel 8? The physical evidence supports no such conclusion. It did not. (As a side note, have you been to Scott's website and seen the picture of that microswitch? It is clear something rather powerful blew through that circuit.) "Powerful"? and "blew through"? that circuit? The one at S11? This one? http://www.apollo1.info/images/Apollo1microswitch.jpg I see a nice shiny metallic colored switch that is so clean that I can read the word "MICROSWITCH" (black on silver) that is a size 10 font or smaller. I see a toggle switch that was physically on the heat exposed side of the MDC panel 8 that has suffered moderate heat damage. How about this angle? http://www.apollo1.info/Apollo1RearS11Wires.htm Look at those wires. If they are teflon then they melt at about 550º F. You would see soot covered copper if they had been exposed to significant heat. How about the paint? No blistering, no bubbling, no discoloration and once again we can read something too "S11". In fact the photo is good enough that you can actually see where the microswitch front surface touched that paint because there is a bit of soot surrounding that ring. Look closely. Now the proof is always in the control isn't it? So here is a control photograph that proves the S11 toggle switch is no different than its neighbors. http://www.apollo1.info/Apollo1Front...RollSwitch.htm I see some soot laden MDC 8 metal. I also see moderately heat damaged toggle switches. I see words on the sooted MDC Panel 8. I see clean metal behind the switch 11 finger guard. I see a lock washer impression where switch 11 was once installed. Now I don't see any tell-tale discolored metal consistent with overheating, nor white alpha aluminum oxide deposits. I don't see any evidence of molten metal flow. The fire actually started in the +yaw thruster of the Service Module, and the fire started 22 minutes before NASA claims it did. What part of the RCS was energized? Was it the solenoids? What are the solenoids made of? Which ones? Did any metal melt or burn? Aluminum? Stainless steel? This is important. Where did the smoke escape to from this RCS fire? Remember there were a few open Service Module access panels to facilitate ground equipment access. Did anyone witness this aluminum or stainless steel smoking? What about that wiring in the Service Module? Surely it would have smoked up a storm and escaped the Service Module onto the platforms at levels A7 and A8? The ones where the witnesses were working. Let's follow this to a logical conclusion. Please do explain. Again, if you ever find your way to the National Archives, you will find multiple documents discussing fire damage to Sector One of the Service Module, damage technicians were at a loss to explain. Surely it could not have been caused by the catastrophic failure of the heat shield in multple locations in the middle of a flash fire that burned and smoldered in the ECU area? Further, if you get a copy of the voice transcript, you will find that +yaw thruster misfired the first time Gus pulsed it; he was forced to fire it a second time. He did not fire any RCS thrusters LaDonna. The Service Module RCS wasn't even wired to the CM MDC. Neither was the Command Module RCS. Instead NASA wired the Command Module MDC electronics that command the RCS to "load boxes" and "A14-275 quad simulators" right? Or is this inconvenient part of the report just part of the big coverup too? Oh and it's pages 1139-1140 and 1237 if you don't believe me. Three minutes later, Roger pointed something out to Gus. The transcript is chopped up at this point, but given the crew's next actions it is rather plain Roger saw smoke: And he just stared blankly at the smoke after smelling the suspicious potting material odor earlier all the while knowing he was in a 90+% O2 environment right? Immediately after Roger points something out to Gus, Roger and Gus both open their faceplates and keep them open for approximately a minute. So during this minute of quiet examination of the cabin atmosphere they mime their discussion so Mission Control won't know that they think there could be this significant problem of smoke in the cabin? Reminds me of SCUBA diving when you want to say something you do it with sign language. At 6:24 another crew member opens his faceplate again (ECU data indicates this; no one was speaking at the time so we do not know whose visor it was.) At 6:30:85 Gus opened his faceplate a third time, this time keeping it open THROUGH THE FIRST CALL OF FIRE, which came from Gus, not Roger (this according to Bell Lab's voice tape analysis.) Why is everyone playing musical visors? Think about it for a second and the answer is clear: They are trying to smell what Roger saw: Smoke. Unfortunately, due to the outflow of oxygen from the suits they were unable to do so. It is amazing that through all of the musical visors, no one ever says a word about what they are doing or why. Finally, as I said, go look at the picture of the microswitch. It speaks for itself. Indeed it does. Daniel OK, I have a couple of minutes while "roomie" watches Jim Carrey. Why do you keep quoting p. 1139-1140? I've already shown this test protocol is inaccurate. For one, it claims this was an open-hatch test, and I think it's public knowledge it was not. Can you not find other "evidence?" Next, I say again, no one has claimed the fire started in the simulators. It did not. And I take particular offense at the idea the crew detected smoke but just sat around doing nothing. Daniel, some of this is common sense. First, the voice transcript has been DOCTORED. I've said that umpteen times. How do I know that? Because Bell Labs voice tape analysis indicates conversation that is NOT reflected in NASA's transcript. Would you like a copy? Next, as I've said, the outflow of O2 from the suits prevented the crew from actually smelling what they THOUGHT they saw. That doesn't mean they didn't SEE it, it simply means they couldn't SMELL it. Again, since NASA cut-and-paste the voice transcript to suit themselves, we don't know WHAT the crew said to Control. All we DO know is there is NO reason for the crew members to keep opening and closing their faceplates unless they were trying to detect something by SMELL. Again, common sense. As for where the fire started, I will say it again: the heater. Period. End of question. The heater was on and remained on when it should not have been on. Perhaps you need a copy of the TPS that indicates unexplained fire damage to that sector? Why do you persist in buying, hook, line, and sinker, explanations from the Review Board that are clearly not accurate? Again, I think you need to wait until you get your hands on the actual TESTIMONY from NASA in Volume I before you start quoting information from the Review Board as Gospel. There's a lot you have not read. Maybe you should wait? LaDonna
|
|
#816
July 5th 04, 09:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(john_thomas_maxson) wrote in message . com...
Doug... wrote in message ... In article , om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy... _facility.org says... On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:14:55 -0500, Herb Schaltegger wrote: Actually, I was rebutting the assertion made by LaDonna that the RCS thrusters actually fired during the test. ...What gets me is that she actually thinks that anyone would fire any sort of reaction engine that produces such toxic gasses in a semi-enclosed environment such as the area around the CM during the plugs-out test. Actually, I *think* that what scott and his followers are referring to is a Service Module RCS hot-fire. IIRC, even on Block I capsules, they never did a hot fire on the CM's RCS until fairly shortly before separating from the SM. snip Bottom Line: The RCS fuel is nasty stuff, and there's no way in ****ing hell that it would have been tested on the ground as LaDip**** or "scott" claims it was. In fact, the tanks weren't even fueled up that far in advance of the launch, which was still, IIRC, almost a month away. Even if they were, doing a test firing like that would have a) been hazardous if not fatal to the Pad Crew, and b) would have contaminated at best the entire White Room and adjacent work areas. Remember, though, that what was later called the "wet CDDT" (the full dress rehearsal of the countdown, including propellant loading, etc.) had just been completed on AS-204 a few days prior to the fatal Plugs- Out Test. (The Schirra crew was inside CSM 012 for portions of that earlier test.) If I'm not mistaken, the wet CDDT included the fueling of all the booster and spacecraft systems (including the CSM's cryogenics, the SPS propellants and the RCS propellants). I know that, once you loaded the hydrazine/nitrogen tetroxide fuels, you had a finite remaining lifetime of the propulsion systems, since the fuels were corrosive to the seals. What I'm not at all certain of is whether or not the SPS and RCS tanks were emptied and re-filled between the CDDT and the actual launch. The cryogenics were definitely emptied and later refilled -- does anyone have a definitive answer for the SPS and RCS tanks? The point is that the RCS tanks were indeed filled for the earlier wet CDDT, and that they *may* have still been filled during the Plugs-Out Test. But since they weren't going to retract the White Room or the access platforms for the Plugs-Out Test, but still wanted to exercise the procedures for the hot fire test, the RCS was disabled and the hand controllers wired into an RCS response simulator for the Plugs-Out Test. Since the S-11 switch and the hand controllers (among other things) all fed into the wiring that was redirected to the response simulator, there is *absolutely* no way that any manipulation of them could *possibly* have caused any response of any kind back in the SM. Doug Doug, you've alleged with an authoritative air of certainty that "the RCS was disabled and the hand controllers wired into an RCS response simulator for the Plugs-Out Test." If you expect us to believe this, surely you owe us a detailed and responsible explanation of the electrical route followed by the crew commands to/from this "RCS response simulator," stating precisely where it was located relative to the crew and the CM umbilical. John Maxson Yes, I second this to Doug, Daniel, and Herb who apparently raised this issue to begin with (I'm going by email; the original author is not always apparent.) If you're going to claim the RCS was disabled, and the hand controllers wired to a simulator, then where's the evidence? What I DO know is this: There was damage to the hand controller NASA could not explain; that is why they asked the FBI to take fingerprints for analysis (the results of which the FBI refuses to disclose.) LaDonna P.S. If anyone wants "proof" the FBI took fingerprints, and that they are now claiming ignorance, email me and I will send it to you. If you can't be bothered with email, don't bother posting to Google. You're clearly not serious. LaDonna
|
|
#817
July 5th 04, 09:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote:
OK, I'm on limited time at the moment so I will have to go point-by-point later this evening when my roommate isn't here. However, I do have points off the top of my head: 1. WHY are you raising questions from weeks ago? Did you just now see the posts? ? 2. You've provided NO documentation that the RCS itself was being simulated. They were "LOAD" simulators--meaning, they were simulating POWER, not movement. Doesn't the power control the movement in some small way? 3. Why do you think the simulators would have been involved? Because the report and the witnesses discuss the RCS static fire as being simulated. I just followed that to its logical conclusion. Do you refuse to acknowledge all verifiable references that contradict you? The burden of proof indicating that there was no RCS static fire simulation involving those valves is yours. You have not done so at least not yet. And, you said, well where is the burn damage to the S-11 switch. There was some microscopic arc related pitting and conformal coating melting on the substructure. If you want to call that "burn" damage, that is your attribution. Well, let me throw that back at you: Where was the burn damage to the cryo stir switch on Apollo 13? Irrelevant to this issue. There WAS none. Why? Because THAT'S NOT WHERE THE PROBLEM WAS! Yes, turning on the fans created the environment for the explosion, but why would you expect to see damage to the switch that initiated the incident? Same thing with the fire. Yes, the S-11 switch ultimately caused the problem, however, the fire did not START with the S-11 switch. Do you not understand basic electricity? If you have bad wiring in your house, and because you turn on a lamp, and that lamp causes an overload that ultimately burns down your house, just because the switch on the lamp socket is not burned does NOT mean it wasn't the problem! This does not help you. Daniel, you said yourself you do not know about this particular realm of investigation. Why in the world would you spend a week reading the Review Board Report and then assert yourself as a fire expert? I have obviously spent a lot more time reading the Congressional Report and other documents than one week. In fact I have read many parts several times. Why don't you do what I have done, and interview electricians, technicians, engineers, etc., and then get back to me in six months or so? Names? You are asserting theories that have no basis in FACT. Such as? You are ASSUMING a fire would originate with the switch. No such evidence is available, nor has anyone with whom I have spoken asserted such a thing. No I am not. Do you really read what other people write here? It's like Scott has said more than once--if someone shorts your ignition switch, and your car goes up in flames, can you say that because the fire started in the battery the ignition switch was not the problem? NO! Quite the opposite. Prove the valves were being simulated (which they were not.) I have provided plenty of evidence. You are the one lacking in the evidence department. Try using something OTHER than a Block II diagram--or are you not aware that not only was the MDC changed for Block II, but the umbilical was moved 180 degrees, and the SM sectors were swapped? I have an SC 012 Block One MDC diagram. I just have not put it on my site yet. This morning I provided Block I diagrams for everyone to see in reference to my discussion. The CM/SM interface on Block I is correctly located as I have stated. You are confusing "load" simulation with "valve" simulation. Tell that to the Spacecraft Test Conductor. Further, you posted a few statements. Not one of them talks about the cable being on fire. I specifically referenced those statements. Where are they? If you need them then please find them and reference them. AND, SOMEONE in here--I don't recall who--talked about what would be better, lying to the families, or having them hear about pulmonary edema, slow demises, etc. Well, the answer is: The truth is NEVER EVER as bad as the lies, questions, suspicions, and cover-ups. Should not the fact that families are asking questions almost four decades later tell you that? If you've never had a loved one die under questionable circumstances, then you have no clue what they are enduring. But as an investigative reporter told me not long ago on the telephone, the cover-up is ALWAYS worse than the lie. ALWAYS. Tell the families the TRUTH. Let THEM decide if it was worth it. So you did read the quad post this morning, but respond here instead? Daniel
|
|
#818
July 5th 04, 11:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm just now getting to Google with any time involvement. I've only
"jumped in and out" until now. If you've got another post, I'll find it in a minute. Meanwhile, Daniel, what ARE you talking about? A fire caused by a switch is not necessarily going to cause electrical burn damage to the switch itself; only if that is the ignition POINT. Again, I get back to the car scenario: If someone plays around with your ignition switch, and causes the battery to catch fire, you cannot claim that because the ignition switch did not burn it didn't cause the fire! And I've also given the house fire scenario--what is so hard for you to understand about that? I've never told this story, but I almost caught my apartment on fire once. I decided to rewire a house lamp (I was working at an electric company as a sales person. We did that kind of thing all the time, so I figured it was a "no brainer.") Well, no-brainer or no, I missed one of the copper wires that was supposed to be tucked inside the socket. Instead, the wire was still OUTSIDE the socket. When I plugged the lamp in, and then turned it on, BAM! I shocked the CRAP out of myself. My ELBOW hurt for days, even though it was my FINGER that was in contact with the socket when I switched the lamp on. (medical explanation: electrical jolts settle in the joints.) Anyway, I immediately reached for the cord with my OTHER hand, and yanked it out of the wall to keep a fire from starting. Are you saying that if I had not done that, and a fire had started at the electrical outlet, that the SOCKET and the wire in contact with the socket, was not the problem? Of COURSE not. Stop trying to make electrical arguments that make no sense. You CANNOT extrapolate, based on burn damage ALONE, where a fire started (unless you have gasoline and a match as evidence.) Electrical shorts will cause problems all along the circuit. Let me go back to A-13, which you claim is irrelevant: Let me ask Mr. Katz, who is the apparent resident expert on the commission that studied the A-13 accident: Was there any electrical burn damage around the fan motor switch Swigert flipped? Answer (without even KNOWING the answer): NO. Why? Because that's not where the problem IGNITED. WHY is that so hard for you to understand, Daniel? Perhaps you should do what I did: Find yourself some electrical engineers and ASK them about electrical shorts and fires. You do NOT need the names and phone numbers of MY sources--find your own. If you don't know how, try the phone book, the local bar, whatever. FIND people who make their livings with this stuff and ask them. They will tell you the same thing. LaDonna
|
|
#819
July 5th 04, 11:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm just now getting to Google with any time involvement. I've only
"jumped in and out" until now. If you've got another post, I'll find it in a minute. Meanwhile, Daniel, what ARE you talking about? A fire caused by a switch is not necessarily going to cause electrical burn damage to the switch itself; only if that is the ignition POINT. Again, I get back to the car scenario: If someone plays around with your ignition switch, and causes the battery to catch fire, you cannot claim that because the ignition switch did not burn it didn't cause the fire! And I've also given the house fire scenario--what is so hard for you to understand about that? I've never told this story, but I almost caught my apartment on fire once. I decided to rewire a house lamp (I was working at an electric company as a sales person. We did that kind of thing all the time, so I figured it was a "no brainer.") Well, no-brainer or no, I missed one of the copper wires that was supposed to be tucked inside the socket. Instead, the wire was still OUTSIDE the socket. When I plugged the lamp in, and then turned it on, BAM! I shocked the CRAP out of myself. My ELBOW hurt for days, even though it was my FINGER that was in contact with the socket when I switched the lamp on. (medical explanation: electrical jolts settle in the joints.) Anyway, I immediately reached for the cord with my OTHER hand, and yanked it out of the wall to keep a fire from starting. Are you saying that if I had not done that, and a fire had started at the electrical outlet, that the SOCKET and the wire in contact with the socket, was not the problem? Of COURSE not. Stop trying to make electrical arguments that make no sense. You CANNOT extrapolate, based on burn damage ALONE, where a fire started (unless you have gasoline and a match as evidence.) Electrical shorts will cause problems all along the circuit. Let me go back to A-13, which you claim is irrelevant: Let me ask Mr. Katz, who is the apparent resident expert on the commission that studied the A-13 accident: Was there any electrical burn damage around the fan motor switch Swigert flipped? Answer (without even KNOWING the answer): NO. Why? Because that's not where the problem IGNITED. WHY is that so hard for you to understand, Daniel? Perhaps you should do what I did: Find yourself some electrical engineers and ASK them about electrical shorts and fires. You do NOT need the names and phone numbers of MY sources--find your own. If you don't know how, try the phone book, the local bar, whatever. FIND people who make their livings with this stuff and ask them. They will tell you the same thing. LaDonna
|
|
#820
July 6th 04, 03:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... If you're going to claim the RCS was disabled, and the hand controllers wired to a simulator, then where's the evidence? With your imaginary "teammates", no doubt. What I DO know is this: There was damage to the hand controller NASA could not explain; Cite, please. that is why they asked the FBI to take fingerprints for analysis (the results of which the FBI refuses to disclose.) Cite, please. P.S. If anyone wants "proof" the FBI took fingerprints, and that they are now claiming ignorance, email me and I will send it to you. How can you possibly send paper through the Internet? If you can't be bothered with email, don't bother posting to Google. Name one person here, other than you (because you're too stupid to know the difference), who *has* posted to Google. *I* have been posting to sci.space.history. I've *never* made a post to Google. Some *investigator*, LaToya.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
