IS: Follow the Current - WAS: Apollo One, the FBI, and Scott Grissom

On 06 Jun 2004 20:23:01 GMT, rk
wrote:

Question rk1: What was the current through the "hard short?"

....Depends on what model stun gun he inserted in place of the gerbil.

Question rk2: What upstream impedance limited the current?

....Depends on whether he has a bladder full of lite beer or real beer.

Question rk3: What gauge wire was used to the switch?

....I wasn't aware "scott" had a Prince Albert. Do you know something
we don't, Rich?

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote in message . ..
On 06 Jun 2004 20:23:01 GMT, rk
wrote:

Question rk1: What was the current through the "hard short?"

...Depends on what model stun gun he inserted in place of the gerbil.

Question rk2: What upstream impedance limited the current?

...Depends on whether he has a bladder full of lite beer or real beer.

Question rk3: What gauge wire was used to the switch?

...I wasn't aware "scott" had a Prince Albert. Do you know something
we don't, Rich?

OM

I don't know where Mr. Intelligent (aka OM) got your original
question, but here are the INTELLIGENT answers:
1. There is the potential for unlimited current through the point of
a short (there is no resistance.) It is therefore impossible to gauge
how much current was going through.
2. No upstream impedence. The switch was the source of the short;
everything downstream was affected by the resultant voltage
transients.
3. I'd have to double-check the gauge of that particular wiring.

(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
2. No upstream impedence. The switch was the source of the short;
everything downstream was affected by the resultant voltage
transients.

The problem is... While the behavior of other equipment on the bus
(the term downstream is incorrect) is consistent with voltage
transients , a hard short produces a standing change in voltage and
current flow, not transients. (If it's not a standing change, its by
definition not a hard short.) This standing change can be masked
however by the effects of switching other equipment on and off the
bus.

Parenthetically I find it hard to credit that a hard short in a
thruster switch would not cause the master breakers on the bus to
perform their intended functions and drop the bus entirely. (I don't
recall however if their were master breakers.)

Transients are indicative of 'arcing and sparking', which is
consistent with the known problems in the cabling inside the CM.
Transients are also a common condition when you have a variable short
or multiple variable shorts to ground (without arcing), again this is
consistent with the known problems with the cabling. Combine these
with the transient effects of switching on and off other equipment on
the bus and you can increase the effects of these cabling problems by
altering the current and voltage flow.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
2. No upstream impedence. The switch was the source of the short;
everything downstream was affected by the resultant voltage
transients.

The problem is... While the behavior of other equipment on the bus
(the term downstream is incorrect) is consistent with voltage
transients , a hard short produces a standing change in voltage and
current flow, not transients. (If it's not a standing change, its by
definition not a hard short.) This standing change can be masked
however by the effects of switching other equipment on and off the
bus.

Parenthetically I find it hard to credit that a hard short in a
thruster switch would not cause the master breakers on the bus to
perform their intended functions and drop the bus entirely. (I don't
recall however if their were master breakers.)

Transients are indicative of 'arcing and sparking', which is
consistent with the known problems in the cabling inside the CM.
Transients are also a common condition when you have a variable short
or multiple variable shorts to ground (without arcing), again this is
consistent with the known problems with the cabling. Combine these
with the transient effects of switching on and off other equipment on
the bus and you can increase the effects of these cabling problems by
altering the current and voltage flow.

D.

That's exactly my point. Yes, this was a "hard short", but you have
to take into consideration its existence long before the test started
that afternoon. When the test did start, everytime the crew powered
up a system on the same bus that system exhibited problems. The Block
I spacecraft was not nearly as protected as it should have been, nor
as protected as systems are today.
So what you are describing here is exactly what I have been talking
about.
LaDonna

(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
That's exactly my point. Yes, this was a "hard short", but you have
to take into consideration its existence long before the test started
that afternoon. When the test did start, everytime the crew powered
up a system on the same bus that system exhibited problems.

I have described a scenario consistent with the evidence (cable faults
and equipment malfunctions and no evidence of a standing change), in
my third paragraph, to which the other two were background. Your
scenario is not consistent with this evidence.

You are ignoring is that the same problems can also be caused by the
known faults in the capsule cabling. You are also ignoring the fact
that none of the behavior that would occur in the presence of a hard
short seemed to have occurred.

So what you are describing here is exactly what I have been talking
about.

My post has nothing whatsoever to do with your theory, but lays out
the evidence that it is all but impossible. Your theory is not
consistent with how electronic or electrical systems work.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
So what you are describing here is exactly what I have been talking
about.

Not quite- you haven't shown that the known faults in the cabling could
themselves have been responsible. That alone is sufficient to have caused
the known effects.

If you expect to prove that a "hard short" somewhere is responsible, it's
your burden to prove, with technical detail, that the other explanations
offered which do match the known conditions are not correct. Merely talking
about them won't do it.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
That's exactly my point. Yes, this was a "hard short", but you have
to take into consideration its existence long before the test started
that afternoon. When the test did start, everytime the crew powered
up a system on the same bus that system exhibited problems.

I have described a scenario consistent with the evidence (cable faults
and equipment malfunctions and no evidence of a standing change), in
my third paragraph, to which the other two were background. Your
scenario is not consistent with this evidence.

You are ignoring is that the same problems can also be caused by the
known faults in the capsule cabling. You are also ignoring the fact
that none of the behavior that would occur in the presence of a hard
short seemed to have occurred.

So what you are describing here is exactly what I have been talking
about.

My post has nothing whatsoever to do with your theory, but lays out
the evidence that it is all but impossible. Your theory is not
consistent with how electronic or electrical systems work.

D.

If you say so. Unfortunately, numerous electricians, technicians, and
engineers disagree with you.

(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:

If you say so. Unfortunately, numerous electricians, technicians, and
engineers disagree with you.

Then I all I conclude is that you failed to give them the full
picture. Most likely you presented the same skewed information you
have presented here, preventing them from reaching the proper
conclusion.

The simple fact is this: Your scenario is utterly incompatible with
the known facts of the case.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:

If you say so. Unfortunately, numerous electricians, technicians, and
engineers disagree with you.

Who are they?

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
If you say so. Unfortunately, numerous electricians, technicians, and
engineers disagree with you.

Such as? Names and contact information, please.