You just go ahead and "double down"...then in a while, you can post that you "overstated" your error.
You are getting more and more "predictable"...
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
You just go ahead and "double down"...then in a while, you can post that you "overstated" your error.
You are getting more and more "predictable"...
"Dodge" noted...
Don't be surprised when Patrick comes back with "I knew that all along".
Actually, no...we are "talking about" your growing list of obvious mistakes and your inability to admit error.
We certainly are not taking anything you say regarding Apollo, seriously, because you've given us no reason to.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
But you missed most of his post. Or else you give no indication that you care about addressing it. His point was your chronic, well-documented, ongoing inability to understand practically anything having to do with your theory remains at odds with your claim that you can infallibly judge whether certain others are either truthful or "perps." Further, your evasion in admitting error is evidence per se of your own deception and bias, for which you categorically refuse to take responsibility.
You seem to operate under the delusion that those who read your statements here are unfamiliar with the conventions of scholarship, the practice of historical research, and the expectations of anyone who wants to credibly present a case. You seem to think you're lecturing to a bunch of rubes. That hubris undermines you at ever step, especially when coupled with your often-puerile tone.
You need to quickly come to the realization that the rest of the world is not as dumb as you apparently think they are. We can tell when you're lying. We know your sock puppets. We can tell when you're backpedaling. We remember what you said previously, and will vigorously hold you accountable for it if you suddenly and inexplicably change your mind. You will be fact-checked. We will examine the context of your quotes. We will consult outside authority, and we will apply our own professional expertise.
They were in 100-percent oxygen also after the fire, except briefly during launch, and this was deemed adequately safe. Why? Because density matters. Gaseous oxygen at 5 psia partial pressure provides a comparable pulmonary experience to sea level atmosphere. The diluent gas is not required in order for the lungs to function properly and for the rest of the body to behave in an acceptable fashion for a short duration.
Similarly 5 psia pure oxygen (i.e., 100 percent) provides putatively no greater a combustion risk than at sea level. However, research conducted after Apollo demonstrated that the diluent gas in Earth-normal atmosphere has a significant enough reduction of ignition risk to warrant the engineering complexity a two-gas environment in subsequent manned space applications.
The danger in Apollo 1 was the high-pressure gaseous oxygen, not the fact that no diluent gas was present. The cabin atmosphere during the plugs-out test contained more than three times the concentration of oxygen that would be present during flight. The cabin also contained combustibles that were not qualified for flight but were allowed for the test.
Two human factors in engineering come into play here. The first is the normalization of risk -- basically, complacency. If you do something risky and nothing bad happens immediately, you being to accept that risk as tolerable. Hence the prior experience with Mercury and Gemini led engineers and operators wrongly to believe that they were fully competent to manage the risk of high-pressure oxygen environments. In fact they were living dangerously close to the edge and simply hadn't accumulated enough operational cycles prior to Apollo 1 to expose the risk empirically.
The second is the notion of satisficing. Satisficing is a contrived term in engineering to mean the manipulation of design variables and trade-offs to achieve an acceptable result. It's a portmanteu of "satisfy" and "sacrifice," embodying the principle that in any engineering problem the variables are inherently in conflict; there is no "natural" solution them.
Apollo in 1967 was ruthlessly schedule-driven. People were working very long hours, leading to lapses in judgment, and organizations were being increasingly held to promised delivery dates. Naturally when satisficing toward schedule, quality and function suffer.
Specifically, any engineered object not only has to meet its mission requirements, but also has to meet several secondary and/or intermediate requirements, such as for manufacturability and testability. Being secondary requirements, they are the first to be marginalized when the primary requirement is placed in jeopardy. And more specifically for Apollo, when CSM 012 started falling farther behind schedule, more attention was paid on getting it ready for its flight. The simulator updates were neglected, and the astronauts complained. And most importantly, evaluating the spacecraft's suitability, readiness, and safety in the test environment were not given enough engineering attention.
This is hard for people to understand who don't work in the industry. Change requests for a large-scale manned product (especially for a First Item model) have to run a gauntlet of approvals according to all sorts of criteria, including safety. Under the breakneck schedule, only evaluations for flight safety were being performed. There simply wasn't time or manpower to accumulate all the criteria needed to understand test safety, and then to evaluate all change requests and design features for those criteria.
Hence flammability tests for design and change requests were performed only under flight
conditions, and only with the materials approved for flight, and only under nominal flight conditions (not, e.g., under contingency conditions such as for damaged wiring or leaky cabin refrigerant).
In short, testing is the first thing that gets short-changed when schedules press. It's not a good thing, but it's how engineering happens and it's why Apollo 1 caught fire.
No, but they were in a big hurry and therefore careless, letting a lot of things fall by the wayside in the rush to meet deadlines. And the investigation that followed unabashedly accused several entities of negligence and carelessness and held them responsible for it. Heads rolled at the topmost levels.
Neither NASA nor North American Rockwell were oblivious to the danger. The objections simply hadn't reached a suitable level of action. Memos had already been written. NAR warned NASA that their test procedures exposed the crew and unauthorized combustibles to high-pressure oxygen; NASA said essentially not to worry, they had it covered. The Apollo 1 fire investigation very much turned into a "Who knew what, and when did they know it?" exercise.
I mention with no small grin that one of the memos sitting in Joe Shea's files at the time of the fire was a description of fires that had burned in hospital rooms fed by oxygen-soaked bedsheets, and wondering whether similar dangers existed in the high-pressure spacecraft test environments. Shea's foot-dragging on those hospital incidents and precautions turned out to be the smoking gun that cost him his job.
They're doing the same thing everyone does who, for engineering reasons, has to work in a different-pressure ambient. There are chemical and physiological effects to any of these environments, and managing them becomes one of the tasks the relevant engineers must face. At all times those tasks require satisficing among competing variables of utility, performance, and safety.
Patrick1000 have you forgotten that you admitted you aren't a doctor? You can't just admit you made up your medical credentials for 'satire' and then go back to referring to them.
JayUtah offers a far more comprehensive explanation of the engineering than I ever could but I would like to point out to Patrick1000 that as a layman interested in spaceflight I was aware of the outlines of the information above and Googling the Wiki page on the Apollo 1 accident at lunchtime(UK time, before JayUtah's post appeared) it took me about two minutes to browse through and find the above information.
I am therefore wondering why someone who claims to be such a great researcher as Patrick1000 does needs to have readily available information spoonfed to him?
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Exploding Frying Pans, Wall Feeds and Vents
Exploding Frying Pans, Wall Feeds and Vents
What an interesting point of contention the oxygen in hospitals thing is. Interesting because it can be so easily resolved given we all have first person access. This must without a doubt be a first for Apollo CT Threads.
I just took a spin through my own hospital to be sure of my facts. In a regular old every day med/surg room the oxygen feed reads "oxygen". Nothing else, there is no warning sign. I wandered up to the telemetry ward and took a look there at the wall O2 feed, again I found "oxygen" and no warning sign. I drifted through our intensive care unit, the wall oxygen feeds read "oxygen". Again, no warning labels. I took a look at our vents. They are made by the Puritan Bennett Company. Nothing written, no labeling on the vents in any obvious way warning sign wise, just the vent controls.
So it would seem that I must be correct, or our hospital is breaking the law. Cannot imagine the latter. Perhaps Tomblvd would be so kind as to do what I did, wander through his hospital and take a look at the O2 feeds and his medical center's ventilators and see if any of those are labeled in any way with a warning sign that alerts the user(and non users) to the dangers of O2. Perhaps he'll report back that they are labeled, "Danger, Astronauts On Duty".
If Tomblvd does find his feeds and vents are labeled with warnings about the dangers of O2, I would be more than happy to post photos of our feeds and one of our Puritan Bennett Vents, assuming Tomblvd does the same and posts images of these medical center weall feed and vent "O2 warnings".
Exploding Frying Pans, Wall Feeds and Vents
What an interesting point of contention the oxygen in hospitals thing is. Interesting because it can be so easily resolved given we all have first person access. This must without a doubt be a first for Apollo CT Threads.
I just took a spin through my own hospital to be sure of my facts. In a regular old every day med/surg room the oxygen feed reads "oxygen". Nothing else, there is no warning sign. I wandered up to the telemetry ward and took a look there at the wall O2 feed, again I found "oxygen" and no warning sign. I drifted through our intensive care unit, the wall oxygen feeds read "oxygen". Again, no warning labels. I took a look at our vents. They are made by the Puritan Bennett Company. Nothing written, no labeling on the vents in any obvious way warning sign wise, just the vent controls.
So it would seem that I must be correct, or our hospital is breaking the law. Cannot imagine the latter. Perhaps Tomblvd would be so kind as to do what I did, wander through his hospital and take a look at the O2 feeds and his medical center's ventilators and see if any of those are labeled in any way with a warning sign that alerts the user(and non users) to the dangers of O2. Perhaps he'll report back that they are labeled, "Danger, Astronauts On Duty".
If Tomblvd does find his feeds and vents are labeled with warnings about the dangers of O2, I would be more than happy to post photos of our feeds and one of our Puritan Bennett Vents, assuming Tomblvd does the same and posts images of these medical center weall feed and vent "O2 warnings".
...and now I imagine Patrick feverishly ripping the warning labels off O2 outlets, in order to take his picture, and make a point of irrelevancy regarding Apollo.
Instead of taking pictures, why don't you take the time to admit your numerous errors?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Translation: what a fortunate distraction this point is; maybe everyone will forget how I lie on a daily basis and change my arguments.
No. I and many others have had first-person access to Apollo materials and people for quite some time. My experience with space engineering is personal and hands-on, not gleaned from popular summaries like yours.
Further, you continue to avoid having your own first-person access with the men you're libeling. Please explain why you haven't yet sent me your contact information.
Hm, let's see. First you say you're a doctor. Then when that blows up in your face, you say you aren't a doctor, and that you made all that up for "satire" value. Now you're back to saying you're a doctor again.
So obviously you're lying. The question remains which statement was the lie. Are you going to tell us, or do we get to guess?
Cannot imagine YOU working in a hospital...certainly not as an MD.
Think about this for a second. It is certainly established FACT that in a pure O2 enviournment, practically anything can act as "fuel", and here you are attempting to "disavow" that knowledge, and are "arguing" that hospitals do not have warnings concerning the use of pure O2.
Who do you think you are "fooling"?...seriously, we aren't as "dumb" as you would like us to be.
You could try this "garbage" over on godlikeproductions, but, seriously, don't expect your "display" of ignorance to impress anyone here.
Will you soon be addressing your numerous mistakes?
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,214
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, Patrick doesn't need to tear the labels off the outlets. That's because his post is a careful hair-split. He talks only about the outlets, and hopes no one will catch him on his carefully-scoped declaration. NFPA regulations require only the green label OXYGEN in green at the outlet. However, NFPA and OSHA requirements mandate larger signage in the areas where higher-than-normal concentrations of oxygen are in use or expected to be present. Those are the DANGER: OXYGEN IN USE, NO OPEN FLAMES type of sign. And they're typically on hallway walls, doors to rooms, placards placed temporarily on doorknobs, and so forth.
Yes, hospitals do indeed consider high oxygen concentrations to be a hazard sufficient to take additional precautions. And oddly enough, that's also in the Apollo records.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
No, it's my contention other hospitals are for the most part like mine....
No, it's my contention other hospitals are for the most part like mine...I imagine big OXYGEN DANGER signs are rare or nonexistent on medical wards, anywhere in this country. I do not see them on our wards, never have.
So my point is that I imagine this is true elsewhere. There are no DANGER OXYGEN signs in patient rooms at the wall feed sites or on the vents themselves in ICUs. It would seem to me that the O2 issue is quite frankly not enough of a concern. It is hard for one to imagine actually a scenario where the hospital O2 would get us in trouble outside of a frank fire breaking out for whatever reason, or a freak event like the Apollo 13 thing, a funny spark. Once there is a fire, having started for whatever reason, then of course anywhere one has oxygen coming out of a feed of whatever sort is going to accelerate the pace of the burning of anything that catches. That would be a huge problem, a fire in an ICU say with open O2 lines feeding it, none of us would deny that, least of all me.
Anyway RAF, you have a very capable colleague on your side of this point in Tomblvd. He works in a hospital himself. Let's see what he reports back. It will be interesting. I suspect he will find as I did/do, "Oxygen" labeled at the feed site without anything else. If he finds something relevant a DANGER warning, and if he posts to that effect and includes a photo, I'll be more than happy to post a photo of my own showing our wall feeds and vents, and would be more than happy to admit my claim that DANGER O2 signs are rare in hospital rooms and on vents is wrong based solely on Tomblvd's verifying that his hospital plays by different rules. That said, betcha' that will not be the case here.
No, it's my contention other hospitals are for the most part like mine...I imagine big OXYGEN DANGER signs are rare or nonexistent on medical wards, anywhere in this country. I do not see them on our wards, never have.
So my point is that I imagine this is true elsewhere. There are no DANGER OXYGEN signs in patient rooms at the wall feed sites or on the vents themselves in ICUs. It would seem to me that the O2 issue is quite frankly not enough of a concern. It is hard for one to imagine actually a scenario where the hospital O2 would get us in trouble outside of a frank fire breaking out for whatever reason, or a freak event like the Apollo 13 thing, a funny spark. Once there is a fire, having started for whatever reason, then of course anywhere one has oxygen coming out of a feed of whatever sort is going to accelerate the pace of the burning of anything that catches. That would be a huge problem, a fire in an ICU say with open O2 lines feeding it, none of us would deny that, least of all me.
Anyway RAF, you have a very capable colleague on your side of this point in Tomblvd. He works in a hospital himself. Let's see what he reports back. It will be interesting. I suspect he will find as I did/do, "Oxygen" labeled at the feed site without anything else. If he finds something relevant a DANGER warning, and if he posts to that effect and includes a photo, I'll be more than happy to post a photo of my own showing our wall feeds and vents, and would be more than happy to admit my claim that DANGER O2 signs are rare in hospital rooms and on vents is wrong based solely on Tomblvd's verifying that his hospital plays by different rules. That said, betcha' that will not be the case here.
And why exactly should we believe you when you once again appear to be alluding to medical expertise/employment that you have admitted to having made up? Or are you claiming your local hospital lets a bike shop owner wander through its wards to check the Oxygen system?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
The Apollo 1 investigators didn't have trouble imagining it, or even pointing to examples of it happening. They cited improbable fires in hospital rooms involving medical-gas oxygen as examples of the thinking NASA and NAR should have been doing in evaluating the risk of high-pressure oxygen during tests.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Yes, he makes a very artful distinction between "oxygen" signs and "warning" signs. It's a distinction without a difference, but it's a distinction.
Although, he did at least once claim that the outlets are labeled only as "O2". They aren't. The entire word "Oxygen" is required by law. But, Patrick will just claim that he wrote O2 as shorthand if called to account on this point.
Don't let the main idea get lost. His overall point was that oxygen is so innocuous that hospitals use it freely without constantly worrying about explosions. That point is utter nonsense.
How does that make your numerous mistakes any less mistaken??
It is irrelevant what you believe....I "believe" that you should address your errors, and not "hide" from them.
See how irrelevant belief can be??
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I agree it's nonsense. He's nitpicking about individual hardware so that he doesn't have to face up to the reality that in the real world there is always an additional precaution mandated when oxygen occurs in higher-than-natural concentrations. Heck, you're even supposed to put up a sign in your home if you have supplemental medical oxygen in certain forms, so visitors don't walk in with a cigarette and turn your house into a smoking crater. A mix of federal acronyms -- OSHA, FDA, NFPA, DOE, DOT -- reign over individual industries and mandate different regimes of notification, handling, and training. But the notion that people who work with oxygen in concentrated form can just pretend nothing's different is pure fantasy.
And that too is subordinate and subservient to the larger point of why the PTFE burned on Apollo 13 when it wouldn't necessary burn under natural conditions, or even under hospital conditions. The basic understanding that a higher concentration and density of reactants produces a more vigorous and energetic reaction is basic chemistry.
Patrick's just trying to wallow in a meaningless detail he thinks he might be able to win, rather than address the wholesale ignorance of his original claims.
- Status