The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

I will start collecting the evidence against the electric comet idea in one post. This will be updated as we discuss the many problems with the EC idea.

EC universe: Ignore the physical evidence such as the measured density of comets.
Real universe: Use the physical evidence such as the measured density of comets to construct theories.


EC universe: Comets are rocks.


Real universe:

1. Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
2. Comets may not have the composition of asteriods
3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
   "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."^WP

EC universe: Comet coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.

Real universe:


Start with Tim Thompson's posts about this

• Electric Comets I
• Electric Comets II: References
• Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).

EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.
(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.)
However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are at least 173,583 asteroids (rocky bodies) that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets. This includes asteroids that have been observed for decades.

Why EC comets are not asteriods


EC universe: Only give qualitative predictions.
Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added).

What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus.

Real universe: Scientific theories model the data mathematically and produce both qualitative and quantitative predictions.
Someone could start with the papers of Whipple

1. Whipple, Fred L. (1950). "A Comet Model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke". Astrophys. J. 111: 375–394. doi:10.1086/145272. http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/seri/ApJ../0111//0000375.000.html.
2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464. doi:10.1086/145416. http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/seri/ApJ../0113//0000464.000.html.
3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750. doi:10.1086/146040. http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/seri/ApJ../0121//0000750.000.html.

and then go ointo the 1000's of scientific papers and many textbooks about comets. Tim Thompson recommened Introduction to Comets by Brandt & Chapman (Cambridge University Press, 2004, 2nd edition).


EC universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot idea by not publishing papers in peer reviewed journals.
Real universe: Take the risk being wrong and become part of the scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g. Fred L. Whipple.

 

[Sol88]

I will start collecting the evidence against the electric comet idea in one post. This will be updated as we discuss the many problems with the EC idea.

Ok, I'll start collecting the evidence for the electric comet idea in one post. This will be updated as we discuss the many problems mysteries involved with the dirtysnowball idea.

EC universe:Spark machining can and does occur on rocky bodies immersed in the solar wind stream, charge separation happens on a scale only recently discovered in the near Earth magnetosphere region down "wind" from the Sun(analogous to a comets tail).

Mercury "doesit" so does the Moon, Venus and Mars "do it"! we can see it in the moons of the gas giants, Io and Enceladeus are typical.

Real universeReality Checks):: Ummm..... it's something that surprised us and we are still not sure of the mechanism involved.

EC universe: Spark machining would involve ELECTRICITY with a gradient sufficient enough to cause OBSERVED effect, extremely fine dust sparked of the nucleus with high temp minerals made during the spark and "free" electrons and Ions in highly collimated "jets"/beams.

Real universe, well the jets are chambers of pressurized gas that sublimates somewhere below the dusty rind, this should disperse and be blown away by the solar wind. We not to sure why it's very fine dust and that there is more of it than volatiles, but, meh

EC: These arcs "eat" the surface of these asteroid/comets/moons/planets displaying the type relief we OBSERVE on these bodies. Because these "jets" do not do anything significant to it's orbit via reaction force, it would not matter who's equation you plug the numbers into, it would be wrong, so density estimates are at best estimates!


EC: The fact that X-Rays are observed at all should suggest highly energetic electrical/plasma events are taking place, most likely involving virtual cathodes, double layers, particle acceleration and a whole host of other OBSERVED plasma/electrical effects, including OH production.

Reality checks: Ummm.....what we talk'n 'bout?

You said Reality check, Rocky Bodies DO have ESD's, did you not? The rest is academic.

 

[Reality Check]

Ok, I'll start collecting the evidence for the electric comet idea in one post. This will be updated as we discuss the many problems mysteries involved with the dirtysnowball idea.

EC universe:Spark machining can and does occur on rocky bodies immersed in the solar wind stream,

Real universe: Spark machining causes bursts of narrow band X-rays. They are not observed on from comet nuclei. Therefore spark machining does not occur on comets.

charge separation happens on a scale only recently discovered in the near Earth magnetosphere region down "wind" from the Sun(analogous to a comets tail).
Mercury "doesit" so does the Moon, Venus and Mars "do it"! we can see it in the moons of the gas giants, Io and Enceladeus are typical.

True.

EC universe: Spark machining would involve ELECTRICITY with a gradient sufficient enough to cause OBSERVED effect, extremely fine dust sparked of the nucleus with high temp minerals made during the spark and "free" electrons and Ions in highly collimated "jets"/beams.

See above for the impossibility of spark machining.

Real universe, well the jets are chambers of pressurized gas that sublimates somewhere below the dusty rind, this should disperse and be blown away by the solar wind. We not to sure why it's very fine dust and that there is more of it than volatiles.

Yes - those are the observed facts. Cometary tails (from whatever sources, including the impossible EC idea) are blown away by the solar wind.

EC: These arcs "eat" the surface of these asteroid/comets/moons/planets displaying the type relief we OBSERVE on these bodies.

See above for the impossibility of spark machining.
Sublimination, jets and impacts "eat" the surface of these comets displaying the type relief we OBSERVE on these bodies.

Because these "jets" do not do anything significant to it's orbit via reaction force, it would not matter who's equation you plug the numbers into, it would be wrong, so density estimates are at best estimates!

They do: Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).

EC: The fact that X-Rays are observed at all should suggest highly energetic electrical/plasma events are taking place, most likely involving virtual cathodes, double layers, particle acceleration and a whole host of other OBSERVED plasma/electrical effects, including OH production.

Real universe: Mostly correct for X-rays generated from plasma. You forgot heating. But the actual X-ray spectrum from comets is broad band emission and readily identified as bow shock emission and bremsstrahlung (i.e. a OBSERVED plasma/electrical effects).

You said Reality check, Rocky Bodies DO have ESD's, did you not? The rest is academic.

I saild that there is evidence of electrostatic charges on the Moon.
IMO it is possible that it could happen on other dusty rocky bodies moving through plasma sheets in a strong magnetosphere.
Someone should actually read Strange Things Happen at Full Moon and New Research into Mysterious Moon Storms, learn about magnetospheres (magnetotails) and the fact that they are the cause of the ESD on the Moon. The Sun does not have a magnetotail.

The rest is academic.

 

[Reality Check]

The Electric Comet idea and jets

The Electric Comet idea has three established failures so far:

1. Predicts the wrong density for comets.
2. No observation of narrow band X-ray bursts from the EC electrical discharge machining.
3. There are at least 173,583 asteroids that should be comets according to EC.

So lets go onto the next topic: The jets that are observed from comet nuclei, e.g. the jets observed by Deep Impact from Tempel 1.

What is the EC idea's explanation for these?

 

[Sol88]

The Electric Comet idea has three established failures so far:

1. Predicts the wrong density for comets.
2. No observation of narrow band X-ray bursts from the EC electrical discharge machining.
3. There are at least 173,583 asteroids that should be comets according to EC.

So lets go onto the next topic: The jets that are observed from comet nuclei, e.g. the jets observed by Deep Impact from Tempel 1.

What is the EC idea's explanation for these?

That would be those pesky ESD's and the associated electrostatic noise as it's machined "off".

1 If the "jets" are not "little rockets" (pockets of sublimating ice) then how does the equation go figuring the density, if it's more like the surface eroding away?

2. I suggest next comet bound mission we look more closely, all conditions are satisfied for X-ray production, but it would be more likely to be observed remotely on the cometosphere boundry (double layer) these are know to be rather good at accelerating charged particles. Though we did see it in ultraviolet light.

3. 173,583 asteroids that should be comets according to Reality check! Citation/s please.

So lets go onto the next topic: The jets that are observed from comet nuclei, e.g. the jets observed by Deep Impact from Tempel 1

Yes lets, [URL="http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ayxpdjcb"]Wal Thornhill says:

This is an ideal opportunity to examine the picture of Wild 2 from the perspective of the electric universe model of comets. Briefly, in that model a comet is a highly negatively charged body with respect to the Sun. Like all charged bodies in plasma, a comet will be enveloped in a plasma sheath (the coma) that limits the reach of the comet's electric field. A forbidden oxygen line was discovered in Comet Austin's coma. "Forbidden lines" are spectral signatures that are not expected in space because here on Earth they are found only within strong electric fields. To astronomers' surprise, forbidden lines are common in space, not only in comets, but in nebulae and galaxies. A cometary display is produced when the nucleus discharges at a rate sufficient to generate a visible tail. The dust and gases that form the comet''s tail are not evaporated by the heat of the sun, but instead are electrically 'machined' from the nucleus by cathode arcs. Laboratory examination of cathode arcs shows that they jump around on the cathode surface, removing surface material in jets to form small circular craters. The industrial process of Electric Discharge Machining (EDM) uses this feature to erode a surface to accurate depth. To the naked eye, the EDM surface looks remarkably smooth. However, when viewed at high magnification, the peculiarities of the machined surface become clear. The tendency for the cathode arc to erode one high point then move to the next high point tends to generate chains of flat-floored craters. The finished surface appears as if someone used a circular cookie cutter to produce extended depressions and channels with scalloped edges. Variations in arc current will produce a layered or terraced effect both within craters and between adjacent craters. Below is an example of EDM scarring.

 

[Reality Check]

That would be those pesky ESD's and the associated electrostatic noise as it's machined "off".

And what do these pesky impossible EDS's have to do with jets?

1 If the "jets" are not "little rockets" (pockets of sublimating ice) then how does the equation go figuring the density, if it's more like the surface eroding away?

Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).

2. I suggest next comet bound mission we look more closely, all conditions are satisfied for X-ray production, but it would be more likely to be observed remotely on the cometosphere boundry (double layer) these are know to be rather good at accelerating charged particles. Though we did see it in ultraviolet light.

There are several X-ray observatories that have observed comets, e.g. Chandra. The X-rays ahave a broad band spectrum and do not have bursts (Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays).

3. 173,583 asteroids that should be comets according to Reality check! Citation/s please.

Obviously you do not actually remamber what you read in this thread and are still ignorant of the JPL Small-Body Database Browser. So here is the post again:

EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.

N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.
However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets.
In fact there are asteroids in orbits that are get close to cometary orbits, e.g. 2005 VX3 with an eccentricity of 0.9955142)

The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows that there are 173,583 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17.

The EC excuse (according to Sol88) is that low solar activity is the reason that these 173,583 cataloged asteroids are not comets. What Sol88 has not realized is that each asteroid is observed a number of times over a period of days to years. These 173,583 cataloged asteroids were not clse to the the Sun at the same instant of time. These asteroids were observed during a range of solar activity. That range included times that comets were visible.

So how many of these should be comets?

EC has no actual physical model and so never gives numbers so we do not expect help there. Sol88 has not been able to cite any observations of comets turining off during low solar activity (or low "charged particle flux at that location"). Also just where is the citation to the EC analysis of the correlation of comet brightness with solar activity at set distances from the Sun?

Conclusion: EC predicts that 100% of the 173,583 asteroids should be comets.
We could be generous and assume that average solar activity is needed and so there are 86,791 asteroids that should be comets according to the EC idea. But that can wait until Sol88 comes up with actual observations related to EC !


Good examples of the asteriods that should be comets according to the EC idea are many of the named asteroids:

• Juno (e=0.2553, observed over a span of 67,610 days).
• Pallas (e=0.2309, observed over a span of 64,291 days)
• Astraea (e=0.1917, observed over a span of 59,759 days)
• ...More than 46 other named asteroids observed 1000's of times over decades.
• Vera (e=0.1939, observed over a span of 45,191 days)

 

[Reality Check]

Yes lets, Wal Thornhill says:

This is an ideal opportunity to examine the picture of Wild 2 from the perspective of the electric universe model of comets. Briefly, in that model a comet is a highly negatively charged body with respect to the Sun. Like all charged bodies in plasma, a comet will be enveloped in a plasma sheath (the coma) that limits the reach of the comet's electric field. A forbidden oxygen line was discovered in Comet Austin's coma. "Forbidden lines" are spectral signatures that are not expected in space because here on Earth they are found only within strong electric fields. To astronomers' surprise, forbidden lines are common in space, not only in comets, but in nebulae and galaxies. A cometary display is produced when the nucleus discharges at a rate sufficient to generate a visible tail. The dust and gases that form the comet''s tail are not evaporated by the heat of the sun, but instead are electrically 'machined' from the nucleus by cathode arcs. Laboratory examination of cathode arcs shows that they jump around on the cathode surface, removing surface material in jets to form small circular craters. The industrial process of Electric Discharge Machining (EDM) uses this feature to erode a surface to accurate depth. To the naked eye, the EDM surface looks remarkably smooth. However, when viewed at high magnification, the peculiarities of the machined surface become clear. The tendency for the cathode arc to erode one high point then move to the next high point tends to generate chains of flat-floored craters. The finished surface appears as if someone used a circular cookie cutter to produce extended depressions and channels with scalloped edges. Variations in arc current will produce a layered or terraced effect both within craters and between adjacent craters. Below is an example of EDM scarring.

The first thing wrong with what Wal Thornhill states is highlighted. Forbidden lines are not "only within strong electric fields". Astronomers are not surprised by them occurring in plasma. They have been observing them for decades. They expect and see the forbidden lines in cometary coma and tails since they are plasma.

The next thing wrong is with his pictures (yet another pictures look alike and so are of the same thing fallacy - there has to be a word for this!). He compares an picture of a "Scanning Electron Microscope image of a surface subjected to EDM." to the surface of Comet Wilde 2.

1. The EDM surface was created artificially and is probably of a flat surface.
2. The EDM surface image is a microscopic picture. If it were less magnified it would be flat! If it was more magnified it would be mountainous!
3. They do not even look alike!

 

[Reality Check]

The Electric Comet idea and jets

The Electric Comet idea has three established failures so far:

1. Predicts the wrong density for comets.
2. No observation of narrow band X-ray bursts from the EC electrical discharge machining.
3. There are at least 173,583 asteroids that should be comets according to EC.

So lets go onto the next topic: The jets that are observed from comet nuclei, e.g. the jets observed by Deep Impact from Tempel 1.

What is the EC idea's explanation for these?

You did not really answer the question so I will make a guess:
EC universe: Jets happen while the EDM "cathode arc" erodes a high point. They stop when the EDM "cathode arc" removes the high point and then moves to a new high point (and a new jet).

Does that mean that every jet must have an associated EDM "cathode arc"?

 

[Sol88]

You did not really answer the question so I will make a guess:
EC universe: Jets happen while the EDM "cathode arc" erodes a high point. They stop when the EDM "cathode arc" removes the high point and then moves to a new high point (and a new jet).

Does that mean that every jet must have an associated EDM "cathode arc"?

Well I'm shocked (scuse the pun ), Reality Check, but it would not be correct to assert every jet must have an associated "cathode arc" but my instead be the next step down, which is a coronal discharge. If the current/field threshold is reached electrical breakdown would occur and "cathode arcs" would form! any discharge would then become a dusty plasma and a flux transfer event would take place between the comet and the Sun!

It's interesting to note that coronal discharges, also called St Elmo's fire, has the same properties as the observed "bright" surface patches and preferentially "eating" the high points on Temple 1 and Wild 2!

Look at the surface it's leaving!

Scientific explanation

Although referred to as "fire", St. Elmo's fire is, in fact, plasma. The electric field around the object in question causes ionization of the air molecules, producing a faint glow easily visible in low-light conditions. Approximately 1,000 - 30,000 volts per centimeter is required to induce St. Elmo's fire; however, this number is greatly dependent on the geometry of the object in question. Sharp points tend to require lower voltage levels to produce the same result because electric fields are more concentrated in areas of high curvature, thus discharges are more intense at the end of pointed objects

So that may explain that electrostatic noise they heard on comet Giacobini-Zinner

(the plasma wave instrument detected broadband electrostatic noise and a changing pattern of weak electron plasma oscillations that yielded a density profile for the outer layers of the cold plasma tail. Near the tail axis the plasma wave instrument also detected a nonuniform flux of dust impacts)

Corona breakdown

Corona also generates radio frequency noise that can also be heard as 'static' or buzzing on radio receivers. Corona can also occur naturally at high points (such as church spires, treetops, or ship masts) during thunderstorms as St. Elmo's Fire.

Electrical activities observed on Dust devils, which are are our Earthly counterparts to comets electrical dust machining

Dust devils, even small ones (on Earth), can produce radio noise and electrical fields greater than 10,000 volts per meter.[10] A dust devil picks up small dirt and dust particles. As the particles whirl around, they bump and scrape into each other and become electrically charged. The whirling charged particles also create a magnetic field that fluctuates between 3 and 30 times each second.[11]
These electrical fields assist the vortices in lifting materials off the ground and into the atmosphere. Field experiments indicate that a dust devil can lift 1 gram of dust per second from each square meter (10 lb/s from each acre) of ground it passes over. A large dust devil measuring about 100 meters (330 ft) across at its base can lift about 15 metric tonnes (17 short tons) of dust into the air in 30 minutes. Giant dust storms that sweep across the world's deserts contribute 8% of the mineral dust in the atmosphere each year during the handful of storms that occur. In comparison, the significantly smaller dust devils that twist across the deserts during the summer lift about three times as much dust, thus having a greater combined impact on the dust content of the atmosphere. When this occurs, they are often called sand pillars.

Interesting Eh? RC.

 

[Reality Check]

It's interesting to note that coronal discharges, also called St Elmo's fire, has the same properties as the observed "bright" surface patches and preferentially "eating" the high points on Temple 1 and Wild 2!

Deep Impact: Gallery: Images: Scarp Edge

This is a region of particular interest. The lack of any features on the smooth region (lower left) implies a young surface. But is it advancing towards the right and covering up rougher, older surface regions? Or is it retreating to the left, eroding and uncovering those regions? The scarp edge marked by arrows is about 10-20 m above the lower and older terrain. It appears bright since it is catching direct sunlight.

So that may explain that electrostatic noise they heard on comet Giacobini-Zinner
Corona breakdown

So does standard plasma physics.

 

[Reality Check]

Restated EC jet question

The Electric Comet idea has three established failures so far:

1. Predicts the wrong density for comets.
2. No observation of narrow band X-ray bursts from the EC electrical discharge machining.
3. There are at least 173,583 asteroids that should be comets according to EC.

So lets go onto the next topic: The jets that are observed from comet nuclei, e.g. the jets observed by Deep Impact from Tempel 1.

How does the EC idea generate jets from EDM machining of the surface of comets?

 

[Sol88]

Deep Impact: Gallery: Images: Scarp Edge



So does standard plasma physics.

I see my work here is done!

Comets are an electrical phenomena or standard plasma physics according to Reality check.

 

[Dancing David]

You still have yet to do more than irrelevant fact attrition, sorry, your work hasn't even begun. Plasma exists, yes, but electric comets, uh huh sure, whatever.

 

[Sol88]

You still have yet to do more than irrelevant fact attrition, sorry, your work hasn't even begun. Plasma exists, yes, but electric comets, uh huh sure, whatever.

That's ok DD, you just call me when you have found your volatiles "somewhere" under to dirtysnowwballs dusty "rind"

You have a mathamatical equation somewhere that proves it!

 

[Reality Check]

I see my work here is done!

Comets are an electrical phenomena or standard plasma physics according to Reality check.

I see that your work is hardly started!

Comets are an not electrical phenomena and not standard plasma physics according to Reality check.


Try reading my post and the actual image caption:
Deep Impact: Gallery: Images: Scarp Edge

This is a region of particular interest. The lack of any features on the smooth region (lower left) implies a young surface. But is it advancing towards the right and covering up rougher, older surface regions? Or is it retreating to the left, eroding and uncovering those regions? The scarp edge marked by arrows is about 10-20 m above the lower and older terrain. It appears bright since it is catching direct sunlight.

There is no electrical phenomena shown in this image.

Are you still ignoring:
How does the EC idea generate jets from EDM machining of the surface of comets?

If so I will make a guess and add it to the list of things that EC gets wrong. Then we can go onto yet another EC topic.

 

[Reality Check]

That's ok DD, you just call me when you have found your volatiles "somewhere" under to dirtysnowwballs dusty "rind"
You have a mathamatical equation somewhere that proves it!

No we have actual science like Deep Impact:

In the post-impact briefing at 0100 Pacific Daylight Time (08:00 UTC) on July 4, 2005, the first processed images revealed existing craters on the comet. NASA scientists stated they could not see the new crater that had formed from the impactor, but it was later discovered to be about 100 meters (328 ft) wide and up to 30 meters (98 ft) deep.[33] Lucy McFadden, one of the co-investigators of the impact, stated "We didn't expect the success of one part of the mission [bright dust cloud] to affect a second part [seeing the resultant crater]. But that is part of the fun of science, to meet with the unexpected."[34] Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact.[33]

This material came from below the surface of the comet.

You can forget about the water being generated by EDM. This was measured by the Swift X-ray telescope (remember Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays ?)

Swift X-Ray Telescope Observations of the Deep Impact Collision

Comet 9P/Tempel 1 was observed by the Swift X-Ray Telescope (XRT) for a total of 250,024 s. Soft X-ray emission, 0.2-1.0 keV, was seen as a diffuse extended halo with an FWHM of 1.03×105 km centered on the comet's nucleus. The X-ray light curve indicates that the comet exhibited a prolonged soft X-ray outburst just after impact of the NASA Deep Impact (DI) spacecraft and enhanced X-ray activity lasted for 12 days. The radial brightness distribution and X-ray spectrum are in excellent agreement with a model of X-ray production in which highly charged minor heavy ion species in the solar wind undergo charge exchange reactions with water group or carbon dioxide group molecules in the neutral coma of the comet. Using this model, we derive a simple expression for the X-ray emission and show that the X-ray flare is, in part, due to an increase in solar wind flux at the comet but is largely due to an enhanced molecule production rate. Assuming that the main outgassing constituent was water, the comet produced (2.9+/-0.4)×108 kg over the 12 day period postimpact. The quiescent water production was expected to inject ~1.0×108 kg into the coma over the same period so the observed X-ray flux indicates that an additional (1.9+/-0.4)×108 kg of water or, alternatively, (3.9+/-0.5)×108 kg of carbon dioxide were liberated by the DI impact.

 

[Dancing David]

That's ok DD, you just call me when you have found your volatiles "somewhere" under to dirtysnowwballs dusty "rind"

You have a mathamatical equation somewhere that proves it!

You still have some big holes in your theory, density and other mechanisms, like how the atypical comet/asteroid gets a charge or how a comet has a higher charge after it passes the sun. The equation I make reference to are your problem, you have no data.

You obviously know as much about frozen things as you do comets, or you wouldn't be so silly. I wonder how you can have a frozen surface on a moon and something not as frozen underneath.

 

[Sol88]

You still have some big holes in your theory, density and other mechanisms, like how the atypical comet/asteroid gets a charge or how a comet has a higher charge after it passes the sun. The equation I make reference to are your problem, you have no data.

You obviously know as much about frozen things as you do comets, or you wouldn't be so silly. I wonder how you can have a frozen surface on a moon and something not as frozen underneath.

DD my trollish friend, you need to do a little more studying before you can grasp what this thread is about, your complete lack of understanding here is blindingly obvious.

please re read this post


Then come back and write an intelligent comment on what you understand the EC theory as.

 

[Sol88]

DD make sure you read and understand what Reality check wrote in this POST this will stop a lot of going round in circles!

 

[Reality Check]

DD make sure you read and understand what Reality check wrote in this POST this will stop a lot of going round in circles!

As I wrote in that post:

This is not electric discarge machining.
The Moon/solar wind/Earth's magnetosphere interaction leads to electrostatic discharges not EDM.

In other words: your post is a red herring.
The electrostatic discharges caused by the Moon passing through plasma sheets in the Earth's magnetosphere is nothing to do with EDM caused by some sort of unspecified potential difference between a comet nucleus and its environment.

There is the heliospheric current sheet:

The heliospheric current sheet (HCS) is the surface within the Solar System where the polarity of the Sun's magnetic field changes from north to south. This field extends throughout the Sun's equatorial plane in the heliosphere.[1][2] The shape of the current sheet results from the influence of the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium (Solar Wind).[3] A small electrical current flows within the sheet, about 10−10 A/m². The thickness of the current sheet is about 10,000 km.

The problem with this as a cause of the EDM is that comets would turn off when they were out of the sheet.

Are you still ignoring:
How does the EC idea generate jets from EDM machining of the surface of comets?

If so I will assume that there is no answer in EC and add it to the list of things that EC cannot explain. Then we can go onto yet another EC topic.