The Electric Comet theory

[Dancing David]

Wait, I thought that the Electric Comet hypothesis was the source of cometary water was oxygen released from a rocky body via EDM. Now it's "dusty plasma"?



So, "something involving plasma is going on with the comet" equals "the comet is an electrical phenomena"?

And there is still a lack of evidence for the electric comet hypothesis or theory.

To add to the tin foil nuttery we still have the overturning of how planets form.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm not spinning my wheels with you Reality Check, the data is coming out and as a "new" discovery are announced then we can discuss some more about the electric comet!

the standard mainstream models are being revised as we speak.

And so the evidence of what electrical currents are actually strong enough to cause comets to glow? Where is that?

And the explanation for why only one Apollo body out of 5500 has a coma?

 

[Dancing David]

You write -OH, perhaps because this negative ion is seen a lot in chemical solutions.

But the OH ion seen in comets is OH+. Actually, the dominant ions we see in the comet tail are positive. Doppler shift indicates they are moving AWAY from the head.
CH+, CO+, CO2+, N2+, OH+, H2O+, Ca+
Neutrals are largely detected in the head.

So this creates problems for Thornhill's claim that the nucleus is negative and repelling negative oxygen ions to combine with H+ in the solar wind to form OH-. These ions should be attracted towards a negative nucleus of an 'electric' comet.

F. L. Whipple and W. F. Huebner. Physical processes in comets. Annual Reviews of Astronomy & Astrophysics, 14:143–172, 1976. doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.14.090176.001043.

Oh whoops, you seem to be actually addressing the Electric Comet theory, some thing that Sol and Haig have a problem with.

 

[Dancing David]

Your answer was absolutely indisputable and at the same time completely useless.

WD Clinger answered your questions, the fact that you don't try to understand why it might contradict something you postulated is telling. You try humor to deflect the fact that WD Clinger addressed a statement of your and showed it to be wrong.

So while you are at it:

Why did only one out of 5500 Apollo objects show a coma?
What kind of charge differential would be needed to make a comet glow?

 

[Dancing David]

Hey, I've never heard that addendum. It's very nice.

I told the joke just to illustrate my point about how informative your previous message was. You've basically ignored my questions, stating some abstract points and demonstrating some ill-founded superiority instead. So I guess it would be reasonable to simply ignore any further messages like that, keeping an eye, however, to anything relevant.

How exactly did WD Clinger not address you questions, show us you are here to discuss.

Ask follow up questions and leave the appeals to emotion at the door.

 

[The Man]

Here source of energy is something that speeds the cometary electrons up from 0 to 400 eV. Monoenergetic beam is a flux of electrons with an energy of 400 eV from the comet to the probe, which mr. Lebreton mentions in his talk at the AGU Fall Meeting.

"something"? you say? So evidently Mr. Lebreton didn't even give a source of energy. Heck, did he even mention a "beam" or "monoenergetic". Not that it matters much, as I'll get to later. However, the assertion of 400 Volts was just yours so don't try to blame Mr. Lebreton. So again what is your source of energy and source of free electrons? If you actually want something other than that "something" you have to say what you think that "something" is and not just refer to it as, well, "something".

Why " form 0 to 400 eV."? What is your source of electrons? If they are free then they probably already have some kinetic energy. Particularly (pun intended) if they have some relative velocity (with the detector) already. If they are in a bound state then there is an energy deficit. Combine a bound state with a relative velocity and things get less straight forward.

Thermionic and photoelectric effects, I'm afraid, will fail to give monoenergetic electron spectrum. They will most likely have continuous spectra like the one you can see here (Figure 4).

Really, delayed thermionic emission from tungsten clusters, is the best you could do?

Potoionization is probably going to be a large (if not the largest) contributor of free electrons from comet material. As binding energies are discrete the electron energies will likewise tend to be discrete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoionization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoemission_spectroscopy

http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-4075/labtalk-article/49672


http://photon-science.desy.de/sites.../e165787/e166482/e166495/e166501/fig2_eng.png

http://photon-science.desy.de/resea...ctron_and_visible_laser_fields/index_eng.html


Not only can detection angle as well as above threshold ionization contribute to electron kinetic energy and intensity (as shown above), but so too can relative motion. So where the somewhat discrete energy peak(s) ends up depends on a lot of factors. Just as the actual potential difference required would for a voltage driven consideration.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Above_threshold_ionization

According to your earlier calculatons, 1 pitcher = 119 Joules or 7.44*10¹⁷ keV.

Actually that would be a pitch of energy. The pitcher (capable of multiple pitches over a period of time) would have considerably more energy. Again it goes back to the main point, that things (even just the calculation of a voltage) aren't as easy as you apparently would like them to be. It is a very dynamic interaction area.


http://www.igep.tu-bs.de/institut/mitglieder/koenders/Hybrid-Plasma-Simulations-of-CG-EGU2014-1.pdf

As for the actual Rosetta data referred to by Mr. Lebreton I'm more than willing to wait until it is actually released to have a good look at it.

 

[paladin17]

Why did only one out of 5500 Apollo objects show a coma?

I don't know how many of them are out there really. I know about at least 95 near-Earth comets. Don't know how many of them have orbits like 6419 Apollo guys.
But anyway, answering to your question, I guess the Apollos are simply too "reserved" in terms of their electromagnetic environment. They hardly even cross Mars' orbit, sticking to a relatively homogenous area, never going to really interesting places lying beyond the orbit of Jupiter.

What kind of charge differential would be needed to make a comet glow?

If we assume that the discharge is due to the comet's static negative charge, then the density should be around 1 C/m², I guess.
However, I think the key is the solar wind protons, which actually makes the surface charge of the comet not even necessary, at least not in any significant amount.
The mentioned 400 V difference between the probe and the nucleus, for example (if we model the nucleus as a conducting sphere), gives us the charge density of the order of 10 pC/m², which is two orders of magnitude smaller than the Earth's.

 

[paladin17]

So again what is your source of energy and source of free electrons? If you actually want something other than that "something" you have to say what you think that "something" is and not just refer to it as, well, "something".

Source of energy for the electrons themselves is the potential difference between the comet and the probe. Source of free electrons is the negatively charged comet nucleus.
Whether these free electrons are collected by the nucleus from the solar wind or are present there due to photoionization - doesn't seem to matter in this case.

Potoionization is probably going to be a large (if not the largest) contributor of free electrons from comet material. As binding energies are discrete the electron energies will likewise tend to be discrete.

Photoionization at the energies of 400 eV?
What kind of photons are those? X-ray?..
And why only this energy, without any signs of distribution? Why not take gamma-rays at, say, 1 MeV?
Binding energies are discrete, but the solar spectrum is not, I'm afraid.

http://www.igep.tu-bs.de/institut/mitglieder/koenders/Hybrid-Plasma-Simulations-of-CG-EGU2014-1.pdf

Thanks for this one.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't know how many of them are out there really. I know about at least 95 near-Earth comets. Don't know how many of them have orbits like 6419 Apollo guys.
But anyway, answering to your question, I guess the Apollos are simply too "reserved" in terms of their electromagnetic environment. They hardly even cross Mars' orbit, sticking to a relatively homogenous area, never going to really interesting places lying beyond the orbit of Jupiter.

Okay so if I come up with the list of asteroids that have an aphelion past Jupiter and have no comas, what would the answer be?

I commend you and thank you for actually answering the question.

The issue I am trying to point out is that there the majority of asteroids which go far out and come in, that never ever show comas.

This seems to contradict the EC

I choose the Apollos because there are so many of them.
Realistically given the square root law (for charge if the sun was providing a charge differential), if a change differential is the cause of the EC comet glow, then there will be a higher change within the close ranges and almost no changes once you get past the orbit of the earth.

So if I come up with a list of asteroids with perihelion withing teh orbit of Mercury they should all show comas.

 

[Dancing David]

Source of energy for the electrons themselves is the potential difference between the comet and the probe. Source of free electrons is the negatively charged comet nucleus.
.

And again this would cause a positive charge to accumulate on the surface of the comet, causing a net charge of zero.


there would be no free electrons in the nucleus, if they were free and could move then they would immediately be canceled by every positive charge they attracted.

But is they are insulated then the surface would accumulate an equal and opposite charge. net charge of zero and a positively charged surface.

 

[Haig]

And again this would cause a positive charge to accumulate on the surface of the comet, causing a net charge of zero.


there would be no free electrons in the nucleus, if they were free and could move then they would immediately be canceled by every positive charge they attracted.

But is they are insulated then the surface would accumulate an equal and opposite charge. net charge of zero and a positively charged surface.

"The Rosetta Mission was supposed to confirm the Big Bang Religious Fantasy. The ice is not there, though, so ESA wants to claim it is there, but it's underneath some dust...the same dust that also does not appear to be there. The bizarre explanations of "dust falling back to the surface building high velocity layers", and a "surface with snow filled stuff on rocky but not rock stuff", which they then call "higher density material" is only going to go so far even with the Big Bang Religious crowd.

I feel a scenario coming on where we start seeing a number of Big Bangers starting to question the Big Bang altogether. I predict some jumping ship but not knowing where to land. And even some jumping ship to the Electric Universe way of thinking.

This is what HAS to happen to get back to real, observational, Tesla-like science. The Big Bang Religious Fantasy is going down. That much we KNOW. And we know the lamestreamers will fire shots at EU and ThunderboltsProject, in particular, in a desperate move to hold on. And that in turn will cause more folks to look at an electric universe.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqxF5u_iaRg (comment of Steven Schrader)

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited to clearly reflect the providence of the quoted material.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Too much Eggnog?

 

[Haig]

Too much Eggnog?

""The "definition" of a comet is unravelling with the latest observations from the Rosetta mission. An alternate explanation is that comets and asteroids are planetary debris from "collisions" (electrical discharges) between celestial bodies. The only difference is the specific electrical activity based on its EM and gravitational environments relative to the sun.""
ThunderboltsProject

 

[paladin17]

Okay so if I come up with the list of asteroids that have an aphelion past Jupiter and have no comas, what would the answer be?

Please do that.
The more info we have on the table, the more accurate conclusions we can make.
The list, I think, would be superfluous. At least a number of such objects, maybe. And a number of those having a coma also.
I've seen one convenient figure in a recent article (P. 18, Fig. 1), but it is more concerned with main belt comets.

The issue I am trying to point out is that there the majority of asteroids which go far out and come in, that never ever show comas.

This seems to contradict the EC

Yes, I understand your point.
But still it would be nice to look how many asteroids are really going far out. Because if we suppose, for example, that the effect depends on the ratio of the electric potential change from perihelion to aphelion and the potential itself has a simple R^-1 law, then we will get that such a ratio for the orbit between Mercury and Mars will be roughly equal to the same ratio between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. The relative potential change, I mean.

I choose the Apollos because there are so many of them.
Realistically given the square root law (for charge if the sun was providing a charge differential), if a change differential is the cause of the EC comet glow, then there will be a higher change within the close ranges and almost no changes once you get past the orbit of the earth.

I don't quite understand, why you are talking about square root (I think the density of solar particles should fall like R^-2, and the charge difference should also behave this way), but I understand the idea. I will need to think other possibilities through, like the metioned above relative potential change ratio.

And again this would cause a positive charge to accumulate on the surface of the comet, causing a net charge of zero.


there would be no free electrons in the nucleus, if they were free and could move then they would immediately be canceled by every positive charge they attracted.

But is they are insulated then the surface would accumulate an equal and opposite charge. net charge of zero and a positively charged surface.

I don't think that the single probe can discharge the whole comet, but if you've meant that this should happen if there is any other type of discharge (like the one supposedly responsible for the jets and water production), then I guess we need to consider other mechanisms also that can replenish the charge (firstly, of couse, the solar wind and photoionization). We also should take into account the charged dust particles that are leaving the nucleus etc.

 

[tusenfem]

If we assume that the discharge is due to the comet's static negative charge, then the density should be around 1 C/m², I guess.
However, I think the key is the solar wind protons, which actually makes the surface charge of the comet not even necessary, at least not in any significant amount.

First of all, don't forget that the dayside of the comet most likely has a slight positive charge because of UV kicking out electrons, and the back side will be negatively charged because of the electrons being able to stick to the surface when they hit.

Secondly 1 C/m² is a surface density not a usual density.

Thirdly, I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to the solar wind protons. That is just blah, unless you come up with an actual model.

 

[tusenfem]

F. L. Whipple and W. F. Huebner. Physical processes in comets. Annual Reviews of Astronomy & Astrophysics, 14:143–172, 1976. doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.14.090176.001043.

Please, don't forget that this wonderful paper by Whipple & Huebner was published 10 years before our first actual flyby of a comet.

 

[The Man]

Source of energy for the electrons themselves is the potential difference between the comet and the probe. Source of free electrons is the negatively charged comet nucleus.

Unfortunately just citing the “potential difference between the comet and the probe” as the “Source of energy” just means that as charges move from the comet to the probe that potential difference decreases. Just as each pitch takes some energy from the pitcher. So the actual “something” source of energy has to be what maintains that “potential difference between the comet and the probe” even while charges move between them and not just “the potential difference between the comet and the probe” itself.

Whether these free electrons are collected by the nucleus from the solar wind or are present there due to photoionization - doesn't seem to matter in this case.

The source of electrons matters specifically in this case. As you are proposing a potential difference between the comet and the probe such that the probe is less negative or more positive than the comet in that area. So a source of free electrons in that general environment would be drawn more to the probe than the comet.

Photoionization at the energies of 400 eV?

Did you look at the link on above threshold ionization?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Above_threshold_ionization

The graph to the right shows the first three ATI peaks for hydrogen as about 80, 175 and 260 eV

What kind of photons are those? X-ray?..

I think ultra-violet, if I’m not mistaken.

And why only this energy, without any signs of distribution?

Not sure, without seeing the data and the environment it was collected. However, given the dynamic nature of the environment I would have to surmise that there is probably a combination of elements involved.

Why not take gamma-rays at, say, 1 MeV?

Again, please familiarize yourself with the photoelectric effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

and perhaps relativistic Doppler shift (as you seem to have ignored my general point about relative velocity being a possible contributing factor).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

So while a spectrum shift from work function energy in the absorber to gamma-ray energy of the emitter is conceivable, it would take a heck of a lot of relative velocity between them.

Binding energies are discrete, but the solar spectrum is not, I'm afraid.

Don’t be afraid, as it doesn’t matter that “the solar spectrum is not” because “Binding energies are discrete”.

Have a closer look at the solar spectrum…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines#mediaviewer/File:Fraunhofer_lines.svg

The dark bands or Fraunhofer lines…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines

are discrete absorption frequencies. So while the solar spectrum may not be discrete what gets absorbed from it is, again because binding energies are discrete. Also relative motion between the source and the observer will shift these absorption lines. So not only do these absorption lines help tell us the composition of stars it also lets us know changes in relative velocity based on how those lines shift over time.

Thanks for this one.

No problem, here is another one for you and everyone. Giving an application of the models to a projection of the Rosetta mission environment. Please note figure 16 that gives the projected E fields in the hybrid model and figure 19 that gives the projected fluid temperatures in the MHD model. Particularly that the E field around the nucleus are projected to be less than 1 volt per meter. Also that fluid temperatures in the bow shock can run in the hundreds of electron volts.

http://www.space.irfu.se/exjobb/2009_kristoffer_hultgren/report.pdf

 

[ben m]

If we assume that the discharge is due to the comet's static negative charge, then the density should be around 1 C/m², I guess.
However, I think the key is the solar wind protons, which actually makes the surface charge of the comet not even necessary, at least not in any significant amount.
The mentioned 400 V difference between the probe and the nucleus, for example (if we model the nucleus as a conducting sphere), gives us the charge density of the order of 10 pC/m², which is two orders of magnitude smaller than the Earth's.

HEY WOW

NUMBERS

THIS IS HUGE

This is the first question every physicist asks about EC theory. "EC is telling a story about high-voltage, high-current phenomena---but this can't be happening because the necessary voltages and currents aren't possible."

So: if one EC hypothesis is "comets would glow if they carried ~1 C/m^2 static charge" then Rosetta has falsified that hypothesis. Congratulations on being the first EC enthusiast in EU history to actually use an E&M law to falsify something. Seriously, by being able to state a number like "1 C/m^2" you are a step ahead of the "professionals" like Talbott, Juergens, Thornhill who have never done so. And notice that stating this number allows us to actually use this RPC information, and actually learn something conclusive from it, neither of which ever happen with the Talbott/Thornhill/etc. methodology.

You are now proposing a second EC hypothesis whereby "solar wind protons" cause discharges? OK, do the same thing. Work out the relevant numbers. Solar wind protons (whose flux, energy density, etc. we know) interact with what and do what? State your hypothesis, plug in the known numbers and the known laws of E&M, and see whether the results favor or disfavor the EC discharge story. (Of course, this thread has already linked to one of many articles where professional plasma physicists analyze the effects of solar-wind impact on a comet; no magic EC discharges show up in these analyses. I'm not sure why we need an additional, amateur analysis of the same thing.)

 

[paladin17]

Unfortunately just citing the “potential difference between the comet and the probe” as the “Source of energy” just means that as charges move from the comet to the probe that potential difference decreases.

You can climb a mountain and jump right down and it wouldn't decrease the [gravitational] potential difference between the mountain peak and its foot. The same is true here.

So a source of free electrons in that general environment would be drawn more to the probe than the comet.

That's exactly what we observe. Solar wind protons are attracted to the nucleus and the cometary electrons - to the positively charged (at least relatively) stuff like the probe itself.

Did you look at the link on above threshold ionization?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Above_threshold_ionization

The graph to the right shows the first three ATI peaks for hydrogen as about 80, 175 and 260 eV

It's very cool, but this is a multi-photon process, which is kind of extremely rare for most of the natural radiation sources. You can relax and neglect it, unless you're dealing with some very powerful laser.
And as you can see the spectrum is still continuous, not monoenergetic.

I think ultra-violet, if I’m not mistaken.

100 eV to 100 keV is an X-ray radiation. And the maximum power of the solar spectrum is around 2-3 eV. This is still not enough even to kick an electron out of the atom (even with a zero kinetic energy). You need to have at least 5 eV, or so. And having the Planck's formula you can calculate how much 400 eV photons are out there (go ahead and do it if you can).

Again, please familiarize yourself with the photoelectric effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

and perhaps relativistic Doppler shift (as you seem to have ignored my general point about relative velocity being a possible contributing factor).

I have no idea how it ended up with Doppler shift. Nor do I have a desire to think possible misunderstandings through.
My words about 1 MeV were meant to cast a doubt (in an exaggerated way) on the idea of the equivalence between continuous solar spectrum and the monoenergetic spectrum with the energy of 400 eV. If I have failed in this attempt, then I'm sorry.

So while the solar spectrum may not be discrete what gets absorbed from it is, again because binding energies are discrete.

So the comet has a single absorption line at 400 eV, I guess? That would be one hell of a discovery.

No problem, here is another one for you and everyone. Giving an application of the models to a projection of the Rosetta mission environment. Please note figure 16 that gives the projected E fields in the hybrid model and figure 19 that gives the projected fluid temperatures in the MHD model. Particularly that the E field around the nucleus are projected to be less than 1 volt per meter. Also that fluid temperatures in the bow shock can run in the hundreds of electron volts.

Cool, thanks.
So the modeled field is 10 times stronger than I've calculated given the 400 eV electrons.
And as some educated people above stated, the eV is just the energy unit, so the temperature of 200 eV is OK.

Well, not OK, but around 10⁶K.

 

[paladin17]

So: if one EC hypothesis is "comets would glow if they carried ~1 C/m^2 static charge" then Rosetta has falsified that hypothesis.

Do you have any evidence of the measured surface charge density?
Please share, it will be most helpful.

Work out the relevant numbers. Solar wind protons (whose flux, energy density, etc. we know) interact with what and do what? State your hypothesis, plug in the known numbers and the known laws of E&M, and see whether the results favor or disfavor the EC discharge story.

My current hypothesis is that the protons are being gathered by an electrostatic field of the comet nucleus itself. And they interact with the negatively charged surface minerals.
Currently I have only one actually measured number: the potential difference between the probe and the comet nucleus, with the distance between them around 10 km. The difference is around 400 eV (according to mr. Lebreton's talk). The graph contains also a density of those electrons, but I simply cannot see it: the resolution of the video is too small.
From this I've estimated the surface charge to be 10 pC/m², although of course pretty strong simplifications were made.
PP-SESAME's potential measurements during Philae's descent, unfortunately, were saturated [with signal?].