|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 8, 2009 20:59:10 GMT -4
You need to test your hypothesis and see if it is actually possible. If not, then you need to discard it as falsified.That's why I recommended the bench tests. We do this all the time for hydraulic systems, but the ones I typically do are very expensive because they involve high-end actuators and controllers. Nevertheless you can get a master cylinder, appropriate slave cylinders, and authentic tubing for under $200. Have a Volvo mechanic hook it up, certify it up to spec, then "fail" it in as many ways as you can. Suck all but 30 mL of fluid out of the reservoir and see if you can still exert braking force. Test different leak rates and see where it becomes noticeable to a driver. Drill holes in the metal, abrade the rubber tubes, and open the bleed valves to see what effect that has on braking. I can only do so much with crude drawings and data sheets, and a little math. I can provide first-order approximations and suggest what to have Gary test with a mechanic. ...apply Occam's Razor, the simplest hypothesis (i.e. the one with the least major assumptions) is likely the correct one"Simple" in the context of Occam means the one with the fewest loose ends. The simplest explanation for the half-inch loss of fluid is simply ordinary leakage. Forcing a leak in one or more circuits would also produce that result, but to test whether that happened to Baron we'd need information we don't have from the original investigation. We can't test that hypothesis, therefore it's not a "simple" one. We don't need to test the leakage hypothesis because we know a priori that it happens. ...investigative journalism tends towards the spectacular because it makes a far better story.I've observed that, but it's unfair to Gary to impugn his entire profession. We can discuss Gary's methods without wondering whether they are followed by others. Without proof, hearsay is worthless as evidence because it means nothing.Not exactly. Hearsay evidence cannot be tested, therefore it has diminished value. If we ask Mogilevsky, "Describe the car that was tailing Baron," his answer would be, "I don't know that; I only know what Baron told me." That limitation prevents hearsay evidence from being accepted in rigorous contexts. The only value hearsay has is as a marker to help an investigator know where to look in order to locate further possible evidence.And that's exactly how Baron was treated before Teague's subcommittee. He was asked about observations he himself could make, and he was invited to submit the names of others who could testify in place of Baron's hearsay. So to his mind, and memory since he did note that he'd have to re-read his report, the biggest issue was a lack of communications. Not really that damaging is it?Yes and no. Baron was right on that point, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know he's right. Any worker will throw up his hands in frustration when he realizes he wasn't told an important piece of information. Communication problems plague all industries at all times, regardless of the pace at which they operate. Jay has never stated that Baron wasn’t intelligent, but rather that there is not enough evidence to determine how intelligent he was.Right. To distill the conversation: Gary: Baron was intelligent, therefore his lengthy report was likely argued well enough to be valuable. Jay: Do you have any objective measurements of Baron's intelligence? Gary: No. Jay: Then we can't accept the viability of the report on that basis. Baron may have been intelligent, but we don't know how intelligent he is. Baron's report may have been well-argued, but not for that reason. This is how refutations works. If someone makes an assertive claim, we test how well that claim is supported. If the claim fails for lack of support. we don't assert the counterclaim; we simply fail to assert the proposition attached to the claim. The needle simply goes back to center, for lack of a better analogy. If someone tells me, "It's raining outside," I may ask, "Can you actually see out the window?" If his answer is no, I know that the argument fails to support the claim. But that doesn't mean it's not raining. It only means that that particular argument fails to establish whether it is or not. It may be raining, but additional observation must occur to determine that. Instead Jay noted that Baron was inexperienced and well out of his depth in the field that he was attempting to work in.Yes. Baron was right to observe that his organization did not communicate effectively. It is reasonable to suggest that all communication be in writing, for example. However, such a thing is not practical or prudent. When Baron makes those kinds of idealistic suggestions, he belies his inexperience. A more experienced operative would respond, "Yes, that would solve some problems but it raises others that impact the work in other ways." ...very intelligent people can have problems trying to deal with things outside their experience...Indeed. I have no idea what the frak a "kilt pin" is. Baron's lack of experience in large-scale organizational management, engineering development, and engineering methodology show in his writings and testimony. They define his expectations, and his expectations in turn drive his judgment of what he observes. When we have that evidence, it is not mere assumption to propose that those same conditions persist. If Gary proposes that Baron's expectations may have improved from one report to the next, then that incurs a burden of proof. When you have an established context, proposing to change aspects of that context requires proof that the context actually changed, or was likely to. If you want to argue that Baron's approach and expectations changed between the short report and the long report, you have to point to events that occurred in his life that drove it -- classes, conversations with experts, etc. But Baron didn't seem motivated to change his approach. He gave his report to NASA, which immediately arranged for Baron to discuss his findings with NAA. But Baron wasn't satisfied with NAA's response and went then to the media. Baron's behavior is not consistent with someone who is evaluating the validity of his expectations. Evidence that change occurred is first-class evidence. I don't see any of it. Evidence that a change was motivated would be second-class evidence. I don't see any of that either. Failing those, it is entirely plausible to propose that the same context in which Baron wrote his short report is the context in which he wrote his longer report. And that context is what's broken. The expectations against which Baron evaluates his former employer's behavior are not well founded.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 8, 2009 23:33:32 GMT -4
For future reference, a "kilt pin" is a pin which holds a kilt closed. It can also refer to the larger pin used on the drapy part that goes over the shoulder, which is what most people mean when they say it.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Dec 8, 2009 23:35:10 GMT -4
I live in FL and use my parking brake every day, every time I park. I have also had a time when I was exiting a highway on the exit ramp at 60+ mph when my brakes failed completely. Not only did I immediately apply the hand brake, I also had the presence of mind to pump it to avoid skidding too much and rolling over (I did swerve quite a bit though but I remembered to turn out of the skids as well) and still apply the brake pedal to keep my brake lights on for those behind me (as if they couldn't tell to stay back from my wild swerving.) My point is that the effects of adrenaline should not be discounted. It is hard to gauge exactly how someone would react in an emergency situation.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Dec 9, 2009 5:24:16 GMT -4
Please excuse the ramble. I have had a few issues with hydraulics over the years. Brakes have failed despite fluid at an acceptable depth in the reservoir. Inspection of the master cylinder revealed the bore was oval instead of circular where the piston with seals travel.
Leaks at the pedal for the clutch (where the rod enters the cylinder), clutch worked even with fluid down to the bottom few mm of the cylinder (not brakes I know and a simpler system).
Seals on the piston in the brake master cylinder have failed giving rise to a lower braking efficiency.
All three did not prevent me operating the brake or the clutch however the brakes required pumping raising the need to check things immediately (one required recovery back the UK from France but covered by insurance). The clutch level was checked when I realise the carpet in the car was a tad damp and it was not water. I realise this is not a definitive A-Z of brake issues.
Brakes have also failed for no apparent reason on one occasion giving rise to a very brown trouser moment and my colleagues in the car about to bail but the brakes came back with pumping. That was never resolved though I suspect it was a master cylinder issue as I replaced it and it never happened again. I did not check the bore on the cylinder before binning it. No leaks anywhere, though I did not dismantle the servo.
Also had a flexible pipe fail on a MOT (legally required test in the UK), testing station was not amused as it had to clear the stuff up. They test the brakes and really put the foot down on the pedal. Apparently it spilled its guts all over the place and made quite a mess at the fail point. This required cleaning the area of the testing bay and the vehicle and anyone who knows brake fluid, it is not nice stuff and it gets everywhere, bit like that oil leak that spreads under the car. The hole it came out of was tiny compared to what I thought it would be but you could see the distortion (bulge) in the pipe.
Numerous other, er, mishaps with bleeding brakes when I used to service my own cars. Never took a faulty car out. Just that old cars (what I could afford at the time) had issues with brake parts. Usually resolved with replacing more than I intended but rusted springs or grooved drums and other awkward issues arise when dismantling things and I can include stuck pistons and piston seals and so on and so on. Bleeding the brakes also highlighted air in the system and what happens. Very noticeable but had I have taken the car out, I think I could have stopped. Then there is old fluid and boiling brakes leading to the dreaded brake fade, never suffered that but friends that have tracked their cars have say it is very scary. But that is extreme braking where the car would not normally experience that.
Makes me look like a Jonah...... but I am still here and managed to stop safely when something went south big time (in my circumstances I know). And probably irrelevant here but an observation on brake issues. In my case I was able to stop, one case it was sudden, others quick but noticeable and time to deal with it. But stuff happens without human intent.
Oh, and completely irrelevant (?), topping up the cylinder then replacing worn brake pads. That makes a mess as you push the pistons back (that force the fluid back) to take up the new pads. That works the other way as well but I assume that it applies to disc not drum depending on the method of adjustment.
Not an expert before anyone asks.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Dec 9, 2009 13:01:17 GMT -4
A viable hypothesis? Okay, how about this: someone enters the wooded lot behind Baron's trailer while the family is eating dinner, slides under the Volvo and loosens two zerks just enough to let brake fluid slightly trickle out..... Takes five minutes. Baron touches brakes as he exits the property, but doesn't stomp the pedal until he realizes a train is bearing down upon him less than a half mile later. As you know from your automobile expertise, fully depressing the pedal will discharge the brake fluid in the line, not stop the car. Is that a viable scenario, or too far fetched? Besides, okay, so he doesn't brake fully while exiting the property--which seems unlikely, but leave that aside--what if, long before he reached the train tracks (for a given definition of "long before," of course!), perhaps before he even got all the way down his block, a kid had run out after a ball? An idiot teenager had run a light? Any of these things might have happened, and that would not have suited the plans of anyone trying to kill him if the plan involved the train. A few more problems with the scenario, that don't even require deep technical knowledge: What if Baron doesn't "stomp the pedal" but brakes slowly How did they plan for him to roll onto the tracks at exactly the right moment? Was the plan for him to hit the Train from the side, instead of the Train to hit his car?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 9, 2009 13:45:02 GMT -4
I don't think anyone is proposing that the alleged saboteur intended Baron to strike the train. I think the proposal is simply that by tampering with Baron's brakes in some way, he could cause Baron to have a serious enough accident to serve his purpose.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 9, 2009 14:59:16 GMT -4
Yes, but that must assume, train or no train, that the car is going fast enough to cause a serious accident, not a safe assumption.
|
|
|
Post by garyplus5 on Dec 16, 2009 11:21:37 GMT -4
Baron's 58-page report survives, as does his testimony before the subcommittee, but has anyone seen a transcript of his February 7, 1967 testimony to the Apollo 204 Review Board? And Dr. Thompson said that Baron "furnished a 275 page document entitled The Baron Report." Has anyone seen that report? Does it exist?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 12, 2010 12:30:16 GMT -4
Gary,
I have made some inquiries at the NASA historian's office regarding the Apollo 204 Review Board and whether any transcripts survive. They were helpful to me in researching other aspects of the Apollo 1 accident investigation, so I hope to hear back from them with an answer yea or nay.
As for the Thompson statement, I had always believed Thompson referred to the lengthier report Baron was writing (and it was reasonably well known that he was writing it) and had simply misstated the page count. Consequently I haven't followed up on it. Help me understand why there is reason to believe Thompson refers to another report we have not yet discussed.
|
|
|
Post by garyplus5 on Jan 12, 2010 17:34:01 GMT -4
I too had considered the possibility that Thompson misstated the page count. But there's a huge difference between 275 and 500 pages. I raised the question because the 275-page is mentioned in on page 228 of the Apollo Accident report. Senator Smith asks Thompson to give a summary of Baron's report, Thompson agrees, then submits a summary, which says, in part: "During the course of the Apollo 204 Review board investigation, a 58 page document called "An Apollo Report was furnished to the Board by a Mr. Thomas R. Baron ... In addition, he furnished a 275 page document entitled "The Baron Report." The 275 page and 500 page reports are probably one and the same. When Baron was interviewed by Thompson's review board in February the report was probably 275 pages. By the time he testified before the subcomittee in April, he had probably expanded the report to 500 pages. Of course, that's an assumption. But if true, it means he had compiled 225 pages Thompson and the review board had not seen.
|
|
|
Post by garyplus5 on Jan 12, 2010 17:50:31 GMT -4
Note: The quote from the Apollo Accident Report should be closed after Report." I resume postulating with the words, "The 275 page report and 500 page reports are probably ..."
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jan 12, 2010 18:59:00 GMT -4
275 leaves can easily accommodate 500 sides of text, plus a few spare for titles etc. and various people use page in either sense, and occasionally interchangeably.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 13, 2010 12:06:27 GMT -4
I too had considered the possibility that Thompson misstated the page count. But there's a huge difference between 275 and 500 pages.Indeed, but I was also considering such things as transcription errors where the magnitude of the difference is not related to the nature of the error. The 275 page and 500 page reports are probably one and the same. When Baron was interviewed by Thompson's review board in February the report was probably 275 pages. By the time he testified before the subcomittee in April, he had probably expanded the report to 500 pages. Of course, that's an assumption.Well no, it's a hypothesis -- and a good one. Holmburg expressed his believe in April that as of his meeting(s) with Baron in February, Baron was still working on the report. If he began the report in, say, December and by April it had grown to 500 pages, it's reasonable to suppose that by February he had produced on the order of 275 pages. But if true, it means he had compiled 225 pages Thompson and the review board had not seen.Meaning what?
|
|
|
Post by garyplus5 on Jan 13, 2010 14:36:24 GMT -4
Meaning Thompson could only summarize what Baron had compiled to date. Thompson could only speak to the complaints related to Baron's work as an inspector, not any of the information that came from sources Holmburg said gave information to Baron. Too bad, I would love to read a summary of the 225 pages Baron compiled while unemployed (if that is in fact the way the 500-page report was compiled).
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 13, 2010 15:58:19 GMT -4
Meaning Thompson could only summarize what Baron had compiled to date.Well yes, but I'm not sure you're characterizing it defensibly. As I recall, Baron was discharged from NAA around the first week of January 1967, but he actually quit working there in November 1966. On Feb. 2, 1967 Baron first meets wtih Holmburg, and Holmburg says he asked Baron about a report in progress. By this time Baron had been gone from NAA for about three months, the most recent month as a non-employee. And by this time the shorter report had already been made public. It is reasonable to conclude that Baron was working on the lengthier report as of the first week of February. Thompson could only speak to the complaints related to Baron's work as an inspector, not any of the information that came from sources Holmburg said gave information to Baron.I don't see enough evidence to justify this conclusion. The Thompson review board took eyewitness evidence from Jan. 29, 1967 all the way to the third week of February. In the best case that would have given Baron six weeks from his discharge and 13 weeks from his cessation of work at NAA. Somewhere around February Baron presented Thompson with at least 275 pages of material. Do you really contend that all of that was limited to Baron's personal work as an inspector? There is quite a lot of time in which Baron could have been receiving third-party statements. Is Baron's statement in Appendix B of the final report? If so, I can't seem to find it. Too bad, I would love to read a summary of the 225 pages Baron compiled while unemployed (if that is in fact the way the 500-page report was compiled).We don't know how the report was compiled. We know that the report contained (but was not necessarily limited to) statements made by third-party informants. NASA was already familiar with Baron's shorter report, which was the result of his work as an inspector. It had already been handled by referring it to the contractor and supervising the contractor's response to it. If Baron's 275-page report was simply an expansion of his own observations, then why would it not simply be considered old news? If it was materially composed of third-party statements, why wouldn't it be hearsay? Yes, we'd all like to read Baron's report. But those who apparently did, didn't apparently think much of it. I really think you're chasing a phantom here, Gary.
|
|