The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

dancingdavid, it's the process by which water is created that's significant, and yes, water masers seem to be a pretty common source of water, among many others as I've been pointing out.

realitycheck; given up?...not even. This is confirmation of the electro-chemical reactions that I've been talking about. I never said that it was electric discharge alone that creates OH and H₂O, rather it's a combination of processes, the positive feedback loops and reaction chains that I've described, which together produce the hydroxyl's, and more, that are emitted by comets. The H⁺ ions (protons) are the key reactive/electrical agents
Also, each one of your "bullet points" has been addressed and explained by myself, and others, multiple times, to the point of becoming tiresome long ago.

No they have not .


The bullet points have never been answered as far as I can see in this thread:

• Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
• Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
• 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 predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets

Maybe your answers were:

• A certain book advertisement site is lying when it states that comets are rocky bodies and compares them to asteroids.
• There are no electrical electrical discharges/EDM/etc. on comets and so
  • No narrow band X-ray bursts.
  • No jets produced by electrical activity.
  • No EDM so no dielectric material needed.
  • No EDM so no sparks.
  • No EDM or other electrical activity on the surface and so not hot spots are detected.
  • The fact that the volatage potentyails is many OOM too small for EC is moot.
• EC predicts nothing so it cannot predict that 100,000's of asteriods have to be comets.

Can you give some numbers for your "combination of processes"?
You do know that the actual science gives numbers that match the observations?

And lets go back to the first point:
solrey
Please give a citation to the definitive EC statement that comets have nothing at all to do with asteriods.
A citation to a text book would be good. Maybe a scientific paper? Or even that book advertisement web site.

 

[Dancing David]

dancingdavid, it's the process by which water is created that's significant, and yes, water masers seem to be a pretty common source of water, among many others as I've been pointing out.

You haven't demonstrated the process you say "There is water, so this must be what is happening.", you have not shown that is what is happening.

realitycheck; given up?...not even. This is confirmation of the electro-chemical reactions that I've been talking about.

Not it is not , not even by a long shot. This is like 'archaeologists say they found the ancient city of jericho , therefore the bible is true'. In you case you saying 'There is water so my theory is true', which you have not demonstrate in the least.

I never said that it was electric discharge alone that creates OH and H₂O, rather it's a combination of processes, the positive feedback loops and reaction chains that I've described, which together produce the hydroxyl's, and more, that are emitted by comets. The H⁺ ions (protons) are the key reactive/electrical agents
Also, each one of your "bullet points" has been addressed and explained by myself, and others, multiple times, to the point of becoming tiresome long ago.

You wish you had done that, you think you have, but you haven't. Tusenfem and others shot you down.

 

[tusenfem]

Well, according to the paper that I have seen this process as discussed by Sunshine (nice name!!) is not very efficient and the amount of water in a football field sized area amounts to less then a quart! So, scale the size of the moon to a comet, see how much water comes from the comet, ahhhh why do I care, let solrey do the math, enough nonsense already, go to sleep, nothing to see here, just keep on moving.

ETA:
Ahhh, I see dumbrey even quoted this stuff:

there's a high chance that trace amounts of water will be formed. These traces are thought to be about a quart of water per ton of soil.

but I guess he does not know how much a quart is and how much one ton of soil is, ladidadidahhhhhhhhhh

 

[solrey]

Ahhh, I see dumbrey even quoted this stuff:

tusenfem, is name-calling really necessary? This new information about water on the moon is confirmation of the chemical reactions I've been describing.


Clear Evidence of Water on the Moon.

"We aren't certain yet how this happens," she said, "but our findings suggest a solar driven cycle in which layers of water only a few molecules thick form, dissipate and reform on the surface each lunar day. We postulate that hydrogen ions from the sun are carried by the solar wind to the Moon and there interact with oxygen rich minerals in lunar soil to produce the water [H20] and hydroxyl [OH] molecules that spectral analysis unequivocally show us are there.

Here's a clue about how this happens, which also explains the sodium and potassium (mineral salts) lunar atmosphere:

solrey
23rd August 2009, 02:15 PM
BTW, there are a number of alkaline, or base, minerals that will produce H2O when reacting with an acid, the H+, in the solar plasma stream.

In an acid-base neutralization reaction,
– H+ from acid reacts with the OH– from base → water, H2O
– The cation (M+) from base combines with anion from acid (X–) → the salt

HX(aq) + BOH(aq) → H2O(l) + BX(aq)
acid base water salt
Note: -An acid will always react with a base to produce water and a salt.
– It does not matter if the salt produced is soluble or insoluble since water always forming means a reaction always occurs.

Again, from the linked article.

In a cycle that occurs entirely in daylight, this water is formed in the morning, substantially lost by lunar mid-day, and re-formed as the lunar surface cools towards evening.

"If this is correct, then such hydration via solar wind would be expected to occur throughout the inner Solar System on all airless bodies with oxygen-bearing minerals on their surfaces," Sunshine said.

NASA is surprised by this discovery.
I am not.
They aren't sure how the water is formed.
I've been describing a chemical reaction with the solar plasma stream, applicable to all rocky bodies exposed to it.
Yeah, that's pretty "dumb" alright.
Whatevah.

but I guess he does not know how much a quart is and how much one ton of soil is, ladidadidahhhhhhhhhh

One quart of water (around a liter) is about 2.2 lbs (or 1 kg), . One metric tonne is 1000 kg which is 1 m³ of H₂O.
A liter is 1,000 cm³.
1,000 cm³ of liquid H₂O equals 1,700,000 cm³ (1.7 m³ ) of vapor at 100 ^oC and one atmosphere of pressure. (using the standard volume expansion of 1700x)
Per Boyle's law of inverse proportion between pressure and volume, at 1/1000000000000 of atmospheric pressure, the pressure on the moon for example, that would amount to 1.7 x 10¹² m³, or 1.7 x 10⁹ km³ of H₂O vapor.

1,700,000,000 km³ of water vapor in vacuum from a measly 1,000 cm³ of liquid per metric tonne of rocks.
Not too shabby.

For comparison, comet Holmes had a coma that was measured at a range from 2.27x10¹⁶ km3 to 1.67x10¹⁷ km3.

It has about 100 km² of surface area.
With 1.7 x 10⁹ km³ of H₂O vapor, produced every ten seconds (for the sake of example), per 1 m³ of the first 1mm of rocky surface (10⁷ m² or 10 km² ) would be 1.7 x 10¹⁰ of water vapor every 10 seconds from the entire surface.
In 48 hours the total volume produced would be 3.52512 x 10¹⁵ km³, which is approaching the lower volume of comet Holmes coma, which also includes a significant volume of dust.

 

[solrey]

The water vapor production volumes described in my previous post would be an idealized situation and not meant to describe the volumes produced on the moon.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Welcome solrey! Keep up the good work.

 

[Reality Check]

It is a pity that solrey does not know that Clear Evidence of Water on the Moon. is about the production of 10-1000 parts per million of water in the top 2 millimeters of soil on the Moon.

Emily Lakdawalla has a couple of good posts on this interesting Lunar phenomena at the Planetary Society blog:
The "Water on the Moon" Hoopla, Part 1: There's water on the Moon!
The "Water on the Moon" Hoopla, Part 2: The murkier part of the story

This is a possible mechanism for the production of a tiny bit of water on the surface of comet nuclei. This fits the mainstream theory not the EC idea. You know the actual scientific theory that predicts stuff that observations confirm rather than the non-science of EC.

solrey is just showing the usual technique of EC proponents that we have seen from him, Sol88 (and now supported by Zeuzzz) - ignoring the actual science for delusional ideas gained from a book advertisement site.

 

[Reality Check]

Welcome solrey! Keep up the good work.

Zeuzzz, do you think that is it good work to ignore the facts that

• EC states that comets are asteriods but comets are measured to have different densities from asteriods.
  Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
• EC states that there is high energy electrical activity (discharges/arcs/EDM/whatever) but physics tells us that these produce narrow band X-ray radiation that. No such narrow band X-ray has been detected.
  Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
• EC states that the difference between asteriods and comets is their orbits but there aremany asteriods with similar orbits to comets.
  EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
• EC states that cometary jets are caused by electrical thingies (no one has any idea what so they just list anything at all) but the required voltages are not there.
  Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.
• EC states that cometary jets are caused by electrical thingies (no one has any idea what so they just list anything at all) but there were no hot spots detected at the base of the jets on Tempel 1. In fact there were no hot spots anywhere on Tempel 1 which is expected in the scientific theory.
  No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
• EC states that there is high energy electrical activity (discharges/arcs/EDM/whatever) creating jets through some sort of magnetic activity (according to solrey) or magic (according to Sol88).
  The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.

 

[Dancing David]

Water on the moon does not confirm your theory until you eliminate the other possible sources.

NASA was suprised or press release language again.

 

[tusenfem]

Welcome solrey! Keep up the good work.

good work zeuzzz keep it up!

 

[tusenfem]

The water vapor production volumes described in my previous post would be an idealized situation and not meant to describe the volumes produced on the moon.

wow I guess the whole moon is just bathed in a huge water vapour cloud, which we are too dumb to observe!

you don't consider that "lots of water" will be bound in chemical bonds, can it all be released?

Also, this production rate for comet Holmes (not that I totally understand the numbers) gives the impression that the water production is higher than the strongest source of mass loss, Io, in number of particles lost/created/etc.

 

[solrey]

Thanks Zeuzzz!

realitycheck, I just realized where the following critique of yours comes from:

EC states that cometary jets are caused by electrical thingies (no one has any idea what so they just list anything at all) but the required voltages are not there.
Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.

Came from this statement by me:

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.

I don't have time to cull through my previous comments, but I'm sure I've mentioned that the DL's dissipate some of the voltage potential between the solar plasma stream and the comet nucleus. The 50,000 v that was measured inside the coma is more than enough to drive a glow discharge on the surface.
Also, regarding thermal hotspots. Please refer to my comments, and/or discharge citations, regarding the cold cathode, as well as the various types of EDM and the entire range of electric discharge modes that EDM incorporates. You're totally stuck on the simplistic, laypersons understanding of EDM as "sparks and arcs", which is only one type of EDM, as I have cited previously, albeit the most well known.

Actually, this article about the "murkier part of the story" of Moon water, that realitycheck linked, helps prove my case that it's the chemical reaction with the solar plasma stream H⁺ protons and the silicate material on the surface (remember stardust mission brought lots of silicate flakes back in it's aerogel) that produces water, via electro-chemical reaction chains. I even used Mercury to make my case and the author of the aforementioned article even mentions that. To wit:

Jessica advanced a different explanation for how you get water on the Moon: she suggested that water might be continuously generated on the lunar surface when solar wind protons bombard mineral grains. Lunar minerals contain lots of oxygen; it's one of the most abundant elements on the Moon. Solar wind protons can make water by reacting with those minerals. This is not at all a new idea; it's been around for a very long time.

But if there's a process operating on the airless Moon, producing detectable amounts of water every lunar day, that's important, because, as Jessica said, "We should see the same effects on any oxygen-rich body with no atmosphere. This includes Mercury as well as asteroids."

Now where have I heard something like that before?

As stardust mission demonstrates, there are abundant, oxygen bearing, crystallized silicates on at least one comet.
I've also talked about mineral salts, specifically sodium, being involved in this reaction and we have a sodium ion tail detected from Mercury and the Moon with a thin sodium and potassium "atmosphere".

Why would a comets water production be so much more prolific than the Moon or Mercury?
Because the DL of the outer cometosheath acts as a funnel, which focuses the solar plasma stream striking the entire surface area of at least the bowshock region, onto the comets nucleus. This provides 8 or 9, at least, orders of magnitude more H atoms available to produce water. There are also likely other water producing reactions taking place, as I've mentioned previously, directly related to electric discharge.
The mineral salts in the reactions on comets are rebonded to the silicates due to the EM environment, whereas on the Moon and Mercury they are able to escape as free ions.


I've been describing this kind of reaction, some of you all argued against it, now we have very likely confirmation that this is actually happening.
But I don't expect any acknowledgement from ya'll.

BTW, here's an excerpt from another forum where I accurately predicted direct evidence of lunar water content, regarding LCROSS mission, at <0.1%...which is what they've determined to be the upper limit of water content, 0.1%.
Based on my idea of water being produced by a chemical reaction and the available hydrogen in the solar plasma stream.

I had made a typo in a previous comment, it came out <10%, but I caught it and corrected it to the intended 0.1 , six days before this new announcement from NASA.

by solrey on Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:29 pm

They will detect >50% OH, however direct evidence for H2O should amount to <10%.

Oops, that should be direct evidence for H2O will be <0.1%

Unfortunately I've got my mind on lots of other stuff right now so mistakes and/or oversights happen in my comments sometimes. One oversight was to not go into the detail I have here on the chemical reactions, the why's and wherefor's, for my thoughts on lunar water content. Because of that, it might not be as valid for some. But I'd say my ideas on this are turning out to be pretty spot on.

 

[Reality Check]

Also, regarding thermal hotspots. Please refer to my comments, and/or discharge citations, regarding the cold cathode, as well as the various types of EDM and the entire range of electric discharge modes that EDM incorporates. You're totally stuck on the simplistic, laypersons understanding of EDM as "sparks and arcs", which is only one type of EDM, as I have cited previously, albeit the most well known.

Cold cathodes actually can operate at high temperatures.

Please present your evidence that the cold cathode that is the source of the jet is actually cold, i.e. exactly the same temperature as the surrounding terrain and so produces no hot spots.

 

[Zeuzzz]

good work zeuzzz keep it up!

I plan to Cheers for the encouragement.

 

[Zeuzzz]

"The Electric Comet Theory"

Hmmm....

Is that anything like "The Electric Slide?"

No, they are completely different phrases.

 

[Reality Check]

I plan to Cheers for the encouragement.

I agree with tusenfem.
Your good work has been instrumental in exposing the EC idea and its gullible proponents (imagine relying on a book advertisement web site for your scientific knowledge!) as total non-science.
As for the EU thread - yet more gullible and proponents and delusions exposed!

 

[Dancing David]

Um, it seems some ideas are again part of the mainstream, but the application is a little different:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090928.html

Note, a mono-layer of possible water from free H+, does not indicate anything other than that as a possibility.

 

[Sol88]

I see some still choose not to believe?

Note, a mono-layer of possible water from free H+, does not indicate anything other than that as a possibility.

That it is also the most likely possibility for OH production on comets? as opposed to "ice" hidden under the surface?

i.e.

A fascinating clue being debated is whether the water signal rises and falls during a single lunar day. If true, the signal might be explainable by hydrogen flowing out from the Sun and interacting with oxygen in the lunar soil. This could leave an extremely thin monolayer of water, perhaps only a few molecules thick

and form a coma around the rocky body as well as a tail?

 

[Reality Check]

I see some still choose not to believe?
That it is also the most likely possibility for OH production on comets? as opposed to "ice" hidden under the surface?

You see that this is a skeptics forum where people with working brains choose to trust the evidence rather than a idea that is obviously wrong (and from a book advertisement web site ).
For example:
EC universe:
We have the idea that comets are asteroids or rocky bodies.
Real universe:
The measurements are tha asteroids and rocky bodies have densities of the order of 3 g/cc. But comets have measured densities of the order of 0.6 g/cc. They cannot be asteroids or rocky bodies. The EC idea is wrong.

The production of some water ice on the surface of comet nuclei from the interaction of the solar wind with the surface of exposed dust is likely.

But anyone who knows anything about comets and has read the articles and posts about this mechanism as it has been detected on the Moon would know that the production is insignificant.

As solrey states, at most 0.1% of the Moon dust is water. A more likely figure is 0.01%. It could even be 0.01%.
Comets have at least 100 times more water as a percentage. The ejecta from the Deep Impact mission on Comet Tempel 1 showed that it was 25-50% water.
No intelligent person would call this mechanism the most likely possibility for all OH production on comets. It could be a mechanism for 0.,1% of the production of OH on comets.

You have shown that you do not know that 0.6 g/cc is less than 3 g/cc (see above). Otherwise you would throw away the EC idea.
Do you know that 0.1% is less than 20% or even 10%?

Add to this the fact that comets have coma and tails when they are outside of the orbit of the Earth (and even Jupiter). This means that the solar wind is reduced, e.g. Jupiter orbits at about 5 AU so the production will be reduced by a factor of 16 (to be generous).

The ice is not all hidden below the surface. There are patches of ice visible on Tempel 1 as you know (or have conveniently forgot).

and form a coma around the rocky body as well as a tail?

Luckily you added the otherwise someone might think you were dumb enough to think that a "extremely thin monolayer of water, perhaps only a few molecules thick" could form a coma as well as tail around the Moon !

 

[Dancing David]

I see some still choose not to believe?



That it is also the most likely possibility for OH production on comets? as opposed to "ice" hidden under the surface?

i.e.

and form a coma around the rocky body as well as a tail?

And the rest of the story?
A body the size of the moon produces x and you want a comet to produce y

BUT you have no data to support your hypotesis, yo ar ethe same as bibe scholars who say "Look they found a wall in Jericho, therefore the bible is true"