The Electric Comet theory

[paladin17]

Good morning paladin17, and welcome to ISF!

Hello. Thanks for the welcoming.

What is "the electrolysis (in the EC model)"? In particular, what is your primary source for this?

How can one derive/conclude "electrolysis" from the ech, objectively?

I was saying that the missing deuterium could have been accumulated via electrolysis of the usual "light" water, that is already present, pretty much like it is done (or at least was done in the past) in the heavy water production plants on Earth. By adding those parentheses I meant that this could explain the high D/H under the conditions of EC model (or hypothesis, if you prefer), even if the solar wind actually lacks D.
Unfortunately, I don't quite understand your words about the source.

Electrolysis of water may be present whenever there are two electrodes and water in between. I think it is quite objective, since the potentials can be measured (and thus we derive the position of the electrodes, would they be real or virtual or whatever else), and we also can objectively measure the position of water. And we also can measure the actual current.

 

[Belz...]

Wait. I thought the reason the ecu/ech was so wonderful is that scientists had to add something unseen/unknown to current theories ( i.e. dark matter) in order to make it work.
So here we are adding an unknown "enrichment process"?

Consistency is not a wooish trademark, for sure
..

Yes, woo is all over the place. It's the eclectic universe theory.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, they don't state it explicitly, because only EU proponents would be stupid enough to even consider it a possibility, so there's really no reason they would bother. But the data is right there: there's far too much deuterium relative to ordinary hydrogen. It doesn't match the solar wind, which will be lower than Jupiter or Saturn (since it was formed from the same starting stuff, but hydrogen fusion in the sun burns up deuterium fast). So the hydrogen (and therefore the water) must be coming from the comet, and not the solar wind.

Oh you and those pesky fact.

 

[Dancing David]

Is such a right-off personal label-sticking the way you always interact with people? This would be kind of sad.

Thanks for the link, though SEP's and the solar wind are different stories, and I've been asking about the latter. In the conclusion it says that the average D/H ratio is only one order of magnitude lower than the 67P's, though.


Electrolysis of water that is being produced via electrochemical combination of protons from the solar wind and the oxygen atoms in the minerals sitting on the surface of the cometary core.
The core itself could be the cathode, and anode would correspond to the plasma sheath around the core. Just as an example.

This just show you have not read the thread, or any of the prior ones.

To your idea at the last sentence, what maintains the charge separation?



T

 

[tusenfem]

It's quite easy, I think.
Take a solar wind speed (say, 500 km/s), the area affected by it (for example, the core being a circle perpendicular to the solar wind stream and having a radius of 1 km -> 3.14*10⁶ m²), calculate the according volume/s (1.5*10¹² m³ s^-1), then multiply it by the solar wind density (say, 10⁷ m^-3 -> 1.5*10¹⁹ s^-1). So we've got roughly 10¹⁹ hydrogen atoms per second, i.e. 10^-4 moles, i.e. 10^-6 litres of water per second.

ehhhh 10^-6 liters per second? You do know we need at least 0.5 liters?
That calculation has been done by my in post 2250 already.

 

[Belz...]

Maybe they're better off not using math after all.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again, paladin17.

Hello. Thanks for the welcoming.

You are very welcome.

What is "the electrolysis (in the EC model)"? In particular, what is your primary source for this?

How can one derive/conclude "electrolysis" from the ech, objectively?

I was saying that the missing deuterium could have been accumulated via electrolysis of the usual "light" water, that is already present, pretty much like it is done (or at least was done in the past) in the heavy water production plants on Earth. By adding those parentheses I meant that this could explain the high D/H under the conditions of EC model (or hypothesis, if you prefer), even if the solar wind actually lacks D.
Unfortunately, I don't quite understand your words about the source.

It can certainly be difficult for someone new to this thread to understand what the "EC model (or hypothesis, if you prefer)" actually is.

In the last month or so we have been blessed by having electrical theorist David Talbott, author of many documents/much material on the ech (etc), join in the discussion.

But what is the "EC model (or hypothesis)"?

From your posts it would seem that you have some such model/hypothesis in mind; may I ask what? And as I cannot read your mind, what primary source can I refer to, so that I may check that my understanding of the ech is the same as yours (for example)?

Fellow ISF member Haig has posted links to a huge amount of material, much of it containing descriptions of what seem to something like an ech (or EC model); unfortunately, many are contradictory, many old, many with unknown authors, some documents, some videos, ...

David Talbott has said that there are no papers describing the ech, published in peer-reviewed journals or not. In light of this, what can one use as the most recent, accurate, complete, (etc) source (describing the ech)?

What do/did you use?

Electrolysis of water may be present whenever there are two electrodes and water in between. I think it is quite objective, since the potentials can be measured (and thus we derive the position of the electrodes, would they be real or virtual or whatever else), and we also can objectively measure the position of water. And we also can measure the actual current.

Thanks for that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh you and those pesky fact.

 

[JeanTate]

Hello again, paladin17. I forgot one thing, fairly important ...

<snip>
under the conditions of EC model (or hypothesis, if you prefer),
<snip>

(I added bold)

It's not my preference, but David Talbott's.

As I understand it, he accepts that if it's called a model, then it is legitimate (valid, reasonable, ...) to ask for quantification (e.g. how the electric field changes along a comet's orbit, or the charge it has at aphelion). However, if it's called hypothesis, then one cannot expect any aspect to be quantified. He seems to be of the opinion that data from Rosetta will enable electrical theorists to begin quantifying the hypothesis, and so a model may be developed (by such people) soonish, perhaps as early as July, 2015. At least, that's my take away from several of his posts, here in this thread.

 

[phunk]

ehhhh 10^-6 liters per second? You do know we need at least 0.5 liters?
That calculation has been done by my in post 2250 already.

10^-6 liters per second? I outgas more than that.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

6[/sup] m²), calculate the according volume/s (1.5*10¹² m³ s^-1), then multiply it by the solar wind density (say, 10⁷ m^-3 -> 1.5*10¹⁹ s^-1). So we've got roughly 10¹⁹ hydrogen atoms per second, i.e. 10^-4 moles, i.e. 10^-6 litres of water per second.

Right, so taking this you need 10^-4 moles of electrons per second.
Using the Faraday constant this gives 10^-4 * 9.65*10⁴= 9.65 Ampere.
Continously. Assuming no energy loss.
What powers this?
And as has been pointed out, a LOT more water is found so you need several orders of magnitude more power.
And give a good practical example that electrolysis even WORKS in the near vacuum of a cometary halo.
And still explain why this massive amount of continous power input seems to totally ignore the rosetta probe itself.

To give an idea of comparison, this much charge/second is about half of what travels trough an average lightningbolt. So according to your calculation the rosetta probe is hit by that much force ALL THE TIME. And if the actual amount of water found is taken into the calculation this becomes 100 fold higher. That should have melted the probe the moment it got close to such forces. It's nice to say 1.5V isnt that much, but as you can see (and should know) low voltage =/= low power.

 

[Belz...]

Electricity: it's everywhere you want it to be.

 

[tusenfem]

10^-6 liters per second? I outgas more than that.

eeee-uwww, TMI!!!

 

[Dancing David]

Welcome Paladin17!

Sorry , this thread , which is in its third incarnation has a long history of post and run by the EC proponents. Sol88 and Haig, and other before them Zeuzzz, and recently David Talbot: pointedly refuse to answer direct questions about teh EC theory.

Sorry if I snaked at you.

 

[turingtest]

Yes, woo is all over the place. It's the eclectic universe theory.

Nominated for apposite pith.

 

[Haig]

First off, you fail to notice (even though it's made explicit in your quote) that this only falsified one of two competing mainstream ideas. Second, as I've said many, many times now: even if we were to falsify mainstream theory in its entirety, that doesn't mean that electric comet or electric universe nonsense is correct. We know it's not. We know it's wrong. Even the very evidence you're trying to use to support it does the opposite. If the mainstream is wrong, then the truth is something else, not this electric nonsense.

Is that so? Because your buddy Wal Thornhill sure thinks that electrical discharges machined out the Grand Canyon.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/mars-and-the-grand-canyon/
https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080929grandcanyon.htm
http://electric-cosmos.org/ouruniverse.htm

Maybe you're just disputing whether Venus is responsible?

Wait, do you mean that plasma is a fundamental state of matter (that is, entirely distinct from gas), and the emphasised "the" is a mistake? Or did you really mean for it to be "the"?



This is just a guess, but I think that: 1) Haig thinks that the mainstream theory of comets needs to be disproven so that people will pay attention to the Electric Comet hypothesis and provided funds to research it, but 2) for some reason he won't spell this out, or even confirm or deny it when explicitly asked about it.

Do not forget that this is the first comet for which we get such detailed information. As up to now, every visited comet has been "nothing like any comet we have visited so far" it could well be that this is a peculiarity of 67P/Chruryumov-Gerasimenko. Although I would be hard pressed to think that we accidentally hit on the exception to the rule.

Yes, woo is all over the place. It's the eclectic universe theory.

Oh you and those pesky fact.

Maybe they're better off not using math after all.

Nominated for apposite pith.

Gezz

Well guys ... I think what we have here is Failure to communicate

So what exactly do you all mean ??? ... when you say things like these:- "that doesn't mean that electric comet or electric universe nonsense is correct." " woo is all over the place" "apposite pith" and lastly to quote tusenfem who frequently says "this electric comet hypothesis fantasy"

What do you claim is so wrong with the Electric Comet hypothesis??? that btw all of you claim not to understand.

So come on ... list those fundamental objections that (so you claim) make it impossible ??? clearly, factually and (the hard part) without resorting to ad homs

One was the production of water between the solar wind and the coma/nucleus (not the right type of water for mainstream ) but Paladin17 (welcome to the thread) has explained how it is possible within the hypothesis and still you want a fully fledged "model"

Electric Comets react to the Electric Sun

The Sun is, after all, obviously electric in nature and comets are charged bodies moving in an electric field, what else could accelerate the solar wind to a million miles an hour past the planets ???

 

[Belz...]

So what exactly do you all mean ??? ...

Oh, I just mean that the electric comet model is nonsense.

 

[Dancing David]

Haig,
Given the number of lumens that the sun outputs, the resistance of the hydrogen, the current needed to generate the amount of lumens, the following would happen....

the sun would go boom and blow apart due to electro magnetic repulsion.

t

 

[Haig]

Oh, I just mean that the electric comet model is nonsense.

Could you expand on that analysis a little ?

 

[GnaGnaMan]

One was the production of water between the solar wind and the coma/nucleus (not the right type of water for mainstream ) but Paladin17 (welcome to the thread) has explained how it is possible within the hypothesis and still you want a fully fledged "model"

No, he hasn't. He worked out that solar wind could only provide a millionth of the necessary hydrogen of "the wrong type".
IOW, he figured out that it doesn't work.