The Electric Comet theory

[Tim Thompson]

Why are Electric Comets Better? Part II

Greetings Tim Thompson. That's a bit of a loaded question, actually.

Why "loaded"? We have in place a working physical model for comets. You have an alternative model to advocate. So, is you alternative model a better one than the standard model, or not? That seems a simple and "unloaded" question to me, and the answer should be easy enough: Yes or No. If yes, then "why is it better?" is the obvious next question. If no, then why are you talking about it?

How about something like; What evidence causes one to believe that the "electric comet" paradigm might be the next step in the evolution of our understanding of comets? As we probe deeper into the environs of the comet, we have discovered a dynamic plasma environment within organized, complex electro-magnetic fields. A magnetosphere has been detected around Comet Halley.

That observation is as expected by the standard model and is consistent with the standard model in every respect, so far as I can tell. So how does this observation make a difference, as regards the electric or standard model? Why is the electric model a better explanation for the observation of a magnetosphere, as described in this paper, as opposed to the standard model?

The "dirty snowball" idea has been around since ~1950 and as more details are uncovered, we're discovering that comets aren't fitting the paradigm very well.

We are? Really? How so? What observational facts can you cite that do not fit the model? Are they simply details, or are they really so significant & fundamental in effect as to call the model into question?

A couple of examples are comas the size of Jupiter, or even the Sun, and some comets displaying coma's and tails much further from the Sun than they should.

Wrong. Neither of these observations is in any way contrary to the standard model. If that's the best you can do, you are out of business already.

You are failing to abide by the fundamentals of science. Where is the evidence that the standard model is inconsistent with observation? Where is the evidence that your alternative model is better than (or even as good as) the standard model? If you can't answer questions like this, then your alternative hypothesis is not worth consideration.

 

[Sol88]

And Tim Thompson has spoken!

 

[Reality Check]

And Sol88 has spoken!

 

[Sol88]

The Moon can gain change voltage from the interaction between the solar wind and the Earth's magnetosphere as is well known. Your links explain this clearly (Strange Things Happen at Full Moon and New Research into Mysterious Moon Storms).


No I do not conceded this. I suspect that it may happen but there is no evidence for it.


It probably happens on dusty asteroids.

Tim Thompson? Tusenfem? could this happen on dirtyiceballs as well?

 

[Dancing David]

Tim Thompson? Tusenfem? could this happen on dirtyiceballs as well?

Could, could, could. I sdifferent from does does does.

 

[Reality Check]

Tim Thompson? Tusenfem? could this happen on dirtyiceballs as well?

Probably no because the interaction between the solar wind and the comet's magnetosphere is too small.

ETA
International Cometary Explorer encounter with Giacobini-Zinner - Magnetic field observations (1968)

The vector helium magnetometer on the International Cometary Explorer observed the magnetic fields induced by the interaction of comet Giacobini-Zinner with the solar wind. A magnetic tail was penetrated about 7800 kilometers downstream from the comet and was found to be 10,000 kilometers wide. It consisted of two lobes, containing oppositely directed fields with strengths up to 60 nanoteslas, separated by a plasma sheet about 1000 kilometers thick containing a thin current sheet. The magnetotail was enclosed in an extended ionosheath characterized by intense hydromagnetic turbulence and interplanetary fields draped around the comet. A distant bow wave, which may or may not have been a bow shock, was observed at both edges of the ionoshpeath. Weak turbulence was observed well upstream of the bow wave.

Earth's magnetic field is about 60 microtesla at the surface.

 

[tusenfem]

Tim Thompson? Tusenfem? could this happen on dirtyiceballs as well?

Why not read the Laakso paper?

 

[Tim Thompson]

What?

Tim Thompson? Tusenfem? could this happen on dirtyiceballs as well?

Could what happen? You mean "change voltage from the interaction between the solar wind"? I don't see why not. If I am not mistaken, if you stick any surface made of anything in a plasma, it will have a potential. Change the plasma and you change the potential. Why should a "dirty ice ball" be any different?

 

[solrey]

Tim Thompson
If I am not mistaken, if you stick any surface made of anything in a plasma, it will have a potential. Change the plasma and you change the potential. Why should a "dirty ice ball" be any different?

We could also ask; Why should any object be any different? You just stated precisely in a nutshell the backbone of the electric comet hypothesis. What happens when there is a change in potential? Charge equalization via charge exchange which produces an electric current and associated electro-magnetic fields of whatever strength and duration the conditions allow. Electro-chemical interactions on the surface of the object are to be expected.
No sublimating ice required.

 

[Reality Check]

We could also ask; Why should any object be any different? You just stated precisely in a nutshell the backbone of the electric comet hypothesis. What happens when there is a change in potential? Charge equalization via charge exchange which produces an electric current and associated electro-magnetic fields of whatever strength and duration the conditions allow. Electro-chemical interactions on the surface of the object are to be expected.
No sublimating ice required.

You have just stated precisely in a nutshell the backbone of the electric comet idea. The organic matter on the surface of comets is evidence of the electro-chemical interactions on the surface of the object.

The delusion that the EC authors are labouring under is that these electro-chemical interactions are strong enough to duplicate the actual properties of comets, i.e. extract water from rock and create jets.
You may have read this before:

You could always have asked for a copy of the paper.
The total potential drop over that layer was 50 kV according to Laakso.
Hardly your expected "orders of magnitude higher than 10⁹ V."

(emphasis added)

Sublimating ice explains all of these within the laws of physics.

"Why should any object be any different?" will be answered by your answer to:
Why are the hundreds of thousands of asteroids that have similar orbits to many comets not EC comets?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

We could also ask; Why should any object be any different? You just stated precisely in a nutshell the backbone of the electric comet hypothesis. What happens when there is a change in potential? Charge equalization via charge exchange which produces an electric current and associated electro-magnetic fields of whatever strength and duration the conditions allow. Electro-chemical interactions on the surface of the object are to be expected.
No sublimating ice required.

Indeed.

However, one is left with at least these two critical questions:

1) why isn't everything a comet - planets, moons, asteroids, dust, spacecraft, ...?

2) to what extent are these processes sufficient to explain the relevant observations? Specifically, can the expected electro-chemical interactions on the surface produce the observed emissions (of gas, dust, plasma, whatever), and the observed deviations from Keplerian orbits?

It would seem, from your summary (and all your other posts) that there is no way to test any of these things, unless and until a great deal more work on fleshing out the idea is done, right?

Oh, and absent that detail, calling this a "hypothesis" is jarring indeed (at least to some).

 

[Dancing David]

We could also ask; Why should any object be any different? You just stated precisely in a nutshell the backbone of the electric comet hypothesis. What happens when there is a change in potential? Charge equalization via charge exchange which produces an electric current and associated electro-magnetic fields of whatever strength and duration the conditions allow. Electro-chemical interactions on the surface of the object are to be expected.
No sublimating ice required.

No but one is easier to explain than the other. Sublimating volitales makes more sense than charging rocks. Now as usual there could be EM effects in comets and there are, but why say that They are electric in nature.

No evidence that the possibility is probability.

 

[solrey]

What causes a cometary discharge on some rocky objects and not others would primarily be differences in composition and rate of change in voltage potential. Based on the material returned by the Stardust mission, the ratio between silicates, other minerals and metals would affect the objects sensitivity to the rate of change in voltage potential. More metals, or better conductivity, will dissipate any built up charge quicker and would require a faster rate of change in potential, less metals would hold a charge like a semi-conductor and would dissipate their charge slower, resulting in discharge with a comparably slower rate of change in potential.

 

[Reality Check]

What causes a cometary discharge on some rocky objects and not others would primarily be differences in composition and rate of change in voltage potential. Based on the material returned by the Stardust mission, the ratio between silicates, other minerals and metals would affect the objects sensitivity to the rate of change in voltage potential. More metals, or better conductivity, will dissipate any built up charge quicker and would require a faster rate of change in potential, less metals would hold a charge like a semi-conductor and would dissipate their charge slower, resulting in discharge with a comparably slower rate of change in potential.

75% of asteroids are dark carbonaceous objects, 17% are stony, the remaining 7% are "metallic".
Are you stating that 93% of asteroids with the required orbits are EC comets?

• There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
• They vary in composition - 75% of these are dark carbonaceous objects, 17% are stony, the remaining 7% are "metallic".
• Thus the majority of them should be comets according to the EC idea.
• But they are not.

 

[Reality Check]

EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets

EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.
There may be other factors involved but since there is no actual EC model there is no list available.

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.

Conclusion: EC currently 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 an EC proponent 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)

This analysis is in fact being generous to the EC idea. A stricter analysis would be to look at the orbital parameters of all comets (not just main-belt comets). This shows that the comet 158P/Kowal-LINEAR has an eccentricity of 0.0279 and a perihelion distance of 4.594 AU.

There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279). These should be EC comets.

Another EC excuse (according to solrey), is that composition plays a part determning whether "discharges" happen. He completely forgets about calculating the energy of these discharges as usual with EC proponents.

 

[Reality Check]

Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small

EC universe: solrey pointed out in this post

Debye length as related to DL's, however, is affected by a number of variables. The paper referenced below, in particular, is applicable to the EC hypothesis, in regards to the comet being an electrode (cathode), in a complex, dusty plasma with a DC bias (the sun). The RF modulation in the experiment is analogous to the RF band of EM waves that permeate the solar system. Note how increases in DC bias (voltage), result in corresponding increases in sheath thickness, and distance from electrode (radius of DL from surface). Take into consideration that just cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm is on the order of 10⁹V and the fact that the voltage potential a comet experiences, would be orders of magnitude higher.

Real universe: tusenfem pointed out that "Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley" by Harri Laakso gave the measured potential drop between electrical layers around Comet Halley.

You could always have asked for a copy of the paper.
The total potential drop over that layer was 50 kV according to Laakso.
Hardly your expected "orders of magnitude higher than 10⁹ V."

 

[Reality Check]

A collection of problems with the EC idea

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 jets, coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.
(but according to solrey EDM does not mean EDM in the EC universe!).

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).

Then look at

• The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.
• EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
• No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
• No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
• Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.

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.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets


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 (according to NASA).

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.
2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464.
3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750.

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.

 

[tusenfem]

More metals, or better conductivity, will dissipate any built up charge quicker and would require a faster rate of change in potential, less metals would hold a charge like a semi-conductor and would dissipate their charge slower, resulting in discharge with a comparably slower rate of change in potential.

Dissipate the charge to where? If the cometary nucleus is charged (which it probably is) where is it dissipating to? It should be in constant balance with the surrounding plasma potential, which is modified at least by the bowshock, "magnetopause" etc. etc.

This, when it happens, would be a very slow mechanism (the plasma potential does not change that much, unless you can show me some observations that it does) and thus the equilibration of potential would be a very slow phenomenon.

So, this whole idea sucks big time @$$, why not put some numbers in it, and some observations and what have you nots. Words are fine, I could write up a lot of junk just in words, and it might sound even convincing (which yours does not) but when the piper plays, and we go to the real word, then it all falls down like the cardhouse the EC model is.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Where's the Beef?

Charge equalization via charge exchange which produces an electric current and associated electro-magnetic fields of whatever strength and duration the conditions allow.

This is all very much the standard model of comets. So, what is the difference between the standard model and the "electric" alternative, or is there any difference at all? If there is a difference, how do you propose to clarify that difference by observation?

Electro-chemical interactions on the surface of the object are to be expected.

Actually, no it is not. The physical conditions around the comets are not at all conducive to such activity. The potentials are way too low, current flows way too weak.

No sublimating ice required.

Since sublimating ice is actually observed (i.e., Schulz, et al., 2006), it hardly matters whether it is "required" or not. Also note that not all the ice in the "ice ball" is water ice. CO₂ & CO ice will also sublimate, and does so at much lower temperatures (and therefore at greater distance from the sun) than water ice (i.e., Mazzotta, et al., 2008; Mazzotta, et al., 2007).

 

[Sol88]

This is all very much the standard model of comets. So, what is the difference between the standard model and the "electric" alternative, or is there any difference at all? If there is a difference, how do you propose to clarify that difference by observation?


Actually, no it is not. The physical conditions around the comets are not at all conducive to such activity. The potentials are way too low, current flows way too weak.


Since sublimating ice is actually observed (i.e., Schulz, et al., 2006), it hardly matters whether it is "required" or not. Also note that not all the ice in the "ice ball" is water ice. CO₂ & CO ice will also sublimate, and does so at much lower temperatures (and therefore at greater distance from the sun) than water ice (i.e., Mazzotta, et al., 2008; Mazzotta, et al., 2007).

I'd like to read the rest of that paper TT? How thought this was kinda telling as far as the non EC model is concerned?

Context: Icy grains in the inner coma of a comet may play an important role in the energy balance and in the production of certain gas coma species. Their existence has therefore been assumed repeatedly to explain a variety of observed phenomena. However, owing to their extremely short life time no evidence for the presence of icy grains had been found in any active comet close to the Sun

been assumed repeatedly???

If there is a difference, how do you propose to clarify that difference by observation?

Yes let's go dig out the double flash and the more energetic than expected explosion shall se Tim?

Also observed on comet Temple 1

DIRTY SNOWBALL MODEL

* Comets are composed of undifferentiated “protoplanetary debris”—dust and ices left over from the formation of the solar system billions of years ago.
* Radiant heat from the Sun sublimates the ices (turns them directly into vapor without the intermediate step of becoming liquid). The vapor expands around the nucleus to form the coma (head of the comet) and is swept back by the solar wind to form the tail.
* Over repeated passages around the Sun, the Sun’s heat vaporizes surface ice and leaves a “rind” of dust.
* Where heat penetrates the surface of a blackened, shallow crust, pockets of gas form. Where the pressure breaks through the surface, energetic jets form.

ELECTRIC MODEL PREDICTIONS FOR DEEP IMPACT:

* An abundance of water on or below the surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption of the “dirty snowball” hypothesis) is unlikely.
* Tempel 1 has a low-eccentricity orbit. Therefore its charge imbalance with respect to its environment at perihelion is low. (It is a “low-voltage” comet.) Electrical interactions with Deep Impact may be slight, but they should be measurable if NASA will look for them. They would likely be similar to those of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 prior to striking Jupiter’s atmosphere: The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact.
* The impactor may form a sheath around it as it enters the coma, becoming a “comet within a comet”.
* Electrical stress may short out the electronics on board the impactor before impact.
* More energy will be released than expected because of the electrical contributions of the comet. (The discharge could be similar to the “megalightning” bolt that, evidence suggests, struck the shuttle Columbia).
* Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile, exceeding any reasonable model for X-ray production through the mechanics of impact. The intensity curve will be that of a lightning bolt (sudden onset, exponential decline) and may well include more than one peak.
* If the energy is distributed over several flashes, more than one crater on the comet nucleus could result—in addition to any impact crater.
* Any arcs generated will be hotter than can be explained by mechanical impact. If temperature measurements are made with sufficient resolution, they will be much higher than expected from impact heating.
* The discharge and/or impact may initiate a new jet on the nucleus (which will be collimated—filamentary—not sprayed out) and could even abruptly change the positions and intensities of other jets due to the sudden change in charge distribution on the comet nucleus.
* The impact/electrical discharge will not reveal “primordial dirty ice,” but the same composition as the surface.
* The impact/electrical discharge will be into rock, not loosely consolidated ice and dust. The impact crater will be smaller than expected.

So we have to go over this again with you Tim?

The mainstream model has never predicted ANYTHING the EC model has!

end of story, Tim