The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

better stated in my next post

 

[Reality Check]

ROFLMAO.

Low porosity equals high density. Low strength equals brittle.

As in a ROCKY BODY.

ROFLMAO

Debating this group of mental midgets is just a waste of time.

ROFLMAO.

Low porosity equals high density. Low strength equals brittle.

As in a NOT A ROCKY BODY.

ROFLMAO

Debating this mental midget is just a waste of time since he is just like Sol88 - deluded enough to think that 0.6 g/cc is not less than 3 g/cc.

 

[Reality Check]

Quote mining from EC proponents?

What solrey has stated about electrical discharge machining:

Hi all. First post here. What fun, mind if I jump in?
First...EDM. EDM is the erosion or etching of an electrode. It could be a rapid, dramatic process, or a slow, steady process. Spark machining is used on very hard materials in industrial manufacturing processes. The slow erosion of the electrodes in a neon sign is a slower, less obvious form of EDM. We could say coronal discharge etching, but the electro-static potential may, at times, reach the threshold for arcing. We say EDM because there are multiple discharge levels occurring on comets, from electrostatic cleaning of dust, coronal discharge erosion, "magnetic vortex" etching, and possibly, infrequent arc machining....

Spark machining is a specific, controlled manufacturing process that utilizes the physics of electrode erosion to machine hard materials and is just one type of discharge within the category of EDM.
cadm.zut.edu.pl/pub/prawie%20wszystko%20o%20edm%20(ang).pdf

Four main types of steady or quasi-steady processes exist:
• the Townsend’s dark discharge, characterized by a very weak current (∼ 10⁻⁸ A);
• the glow discharge, widely used in many industrial processes, operating at low current (∼ 10⁻² A), fairly high voltage (∼ 1 kV) and low pressure (∼ mbar). The glow plasma is weakly ionized and in a non-equilibrium state, and is visible as a uniform glowing column. As in the Townsend’s discharge, electrons are emitted by ion impacts on the cold cathode;
• the corona discharge, also at low current (∼ 10⁻⁶ A) but at atmospheric pressure. Corona discharges develop locally (typically around sharp ends of wires) in strongly non-uniform electric field;
• the arc discharge, characterized by high current (∼ 100 A), low voltage (∼ 10 V) and a bright light emission. The arc discharge differs from the glow discharge in the electron emission mechanism. In arcs, electrons are emitted by thermionic processes, due to the heating of the cathode. The plasma of high pressure arcs can beconsidered to be in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

So lets look at the PDF he cites:
Characterization of Electrical Discharge Machining Plasmas
The quote comes after:

Chapter 2
EDM plasmas : Background
Although EDM discharges take place in a dielectric liquid, the first section of this chapter will deal with discharges in gases. They have been extensively studied [47–49], and have common features with discharges in liquids. After that, a brief review about the specific characteristics of discharges in liquids will be given in the second section. Finally, other plasmas similar to the EDM plasmas are presented in the last section.
2.1 Discharges in gases
2.1.1 Spark, arc, glow & co.
Depending on the gas pressure, the electrode gap and the electrode configuration, several discharge regimes can be distinguished. They can be classified according to their current voltage characteristics, as shown in figure 2.1.

Then there is figure 2.1 and solreys quote mining.

In other words the PDF describes the list of discharges in gases that have similar features to EDM plasma. But as solrey's one and only source states: EDM discharges take place in a dielectric liquid.
All the other discharges are not used in EDM.
EDM is the mechanism that the Thunderbolts book advertisment site states is the source of the machining that they say happens in their EC idea.

Could the above gas discharges occur on comets at a level high enough to do anything to the rocky body? My guess is:

• Not Townsend’s dark discharge since the current looks too low to machine rock.
• Not glow discharge since a pressure of ~mbar sounds much too big for the pressure of the coma's gas. Also it would be visible as a uniform glowing column - not seen.
• Not corona discharge since it needs atmospheric pressure.
• And an arc discharge would be already detected just like like EDM.

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.

 

[Dancing David]

(emphasis added)




ROFLMAO.

Low porosity equals high density. Low strength equals brittle.

As in a ROCKY BODY.

ROFLMAO

Debating this group of mental midgets is just a waste of time.

Interesting, you don't actually explain yourself and go straight for the ad hom.

 

[Reality Check]

Interesting, you don't actually explain yourself and go straight for the ad hom.

Since he did not understand the abstract it was the only thing that he could think of doing .

Only impacts into materials of extremely low strength (< 100 Pa) and of low porousity can create such large crater ejecta masses. Only impacts into materials of extremely low strength (< 100 Pa) and of low porousity can create such large crater ejecta masses. Since comets are expected to be more porous and of somewhat higher strength (at the spatial scale of the impact), we investigate alternative possibilities to explain the large amount of observed dust and gas.

(solrey's bolding retained)

In this case low porosity means low with respect to to the expected (high) porosity. What was measured was a porosity of 70%:
Deep Impact: excavating comet 9P/Tempel 1 (PDF)

For a dust-to-volatile ratio of 2, assuming material densities of 2.5 (some denser silicates and some less dense organics) and 1 respectively, this implies a very high porosity of 70% for the bulk properties of the nucleus.

The conclusion in the paper is that the porosity of the comet nucleus is greater than 50%.

Deep Impact Science Objectives

Porosities of meteorites have been measured and range from zero to 24% but half of the samples measured below 6% and half measured above 6%.

Any one can see that the porosity of Tempel 1 is much greater than that of asteriods. Temple 1 is not a rocky body like an asteriod.

I am still waiting for the obvious EC style idea to address this. I can think of it and I am not that smart. Why can't Sol88 or solrey?
It does have some defects but it is at least does not have the defect that the comets are rocky bodies idea has: Making EC proponents look completely simple for believing it ! One more time: 3.0 g/cc is not 0.6 g/cc

 

[Sol88]

You haven't demonstrated at all that the coma is produced by electrical discharge.

The sublimation of frozen 'ice; is reasonable. But please focus on the notion that ice is only water and not any other frozen material.

The material once released will interact in the unmysterious and unmagical fashion of standard physics.

The sublimation of frozen 'ice; is reasonable.????? though your "ice" is hidden, ours is made via the solar wind!!!!

You have never seen your "ice", ours has been seen on Mercury, the moon and now asteroids!!!

Your "ice" can be adjusted to "just" the right amount to explain the outgassing, ours is variable depending on it's electrical environment, like the moon and Mercury!!!!


Your "ice" belongs in the land of unicorns and pixies, our ice is hard fact!!!

 

[Sol88]

Sol88:
I just want to check that you still believe 0.6 g/cc (the measured density of actual comets) is 3 g/cc (the predicted density of EC comets).

Is this right?

Ahhhh i see why your are so gleefull RC, I misread your question!

I understood a first glance that you asked if i still believe that comets have density greater than 0.6g/cm3 and closer to 3 g/cm3 which I answered as yes.

I've re read your question and see you asked is 0.6 greater than 3? ummmmm....NO it's not!!!

Are you unsure, my friend?

Would you like some help?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Okay so (I think) Sol88 thinks the density should be 3 g/cc. RC thinks it should be 0.6 g/cc.

Evidence? Both of you?

 

[Reality Check]

Okay so (I think) Sol88 thinks the density should be 3 g/cc. RC thinks it should be 0.6 g/cc.

Evidence? Both of you?

You mean the many actual measurements of the densities of both comets and asteriods as listed in many scientific papers and textbooks?
You know the ones that Sol88 and solrey are completely ignoring?

Read the thread or start with Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).

 

[Reality Check]

Ahhhh i see why your are so gleefull RC, I misread your question!

Read the question again.
Making it simpler for simple minds (yet again):

• The measured density of comets as reported in many scientific papers and textbooks is about 0.6 g/cc.
• The measured denity of asteriods as reported in many scientific papers and textbooks is about 3.0 g/cc.

Do you (Sol88) think that 0.6 is

1. Less than 3.0 or
2. Equal to 3.0 or
3. Greater than 3.0.

If your answer is 1 (0.6 is less than 3.0) then comets as not asteriods. The central concept of the EC idea is that comets are asteriods (or "rocky bodies").
Thus if your answer is 1 then you agree that the EC idea is wrong and this thread is over.

What is your answer Sol88?
P.S. solrey - Please feel free to answer this question as well.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Okay thats one theory. Either a new one has be produced to explain the value, or problems can be found with the ones RC linked to above (I could see none from a quick scan)

 

[Reality Check]

Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)

(thanks Sol88 for reminding me that the Deep Impact results supply more than 1 nail in the EC coffin!)

EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteroids and probably created in the same event as asteroids (according to Thunderbolts). Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material (e.g. water) that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining. Like everything in the EC idea there are no numbers and so no prediction of the composition of the nucleus. We could say that means that the EC idea predicts no water (0%) but there should be some blowback from the physically impossible (on comets) EDM process.
Asteroids in general have very low amounts of water. So let's just throw in 1% water as an extremely generous guess - IMHO it should be something like 0.01%. Sol88 or solrey should provide a better number if they have it.

Real universe: Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as "dirty snowballs". The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.

So let up look at the results of the Deep Impact mission

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]

The impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% of water and 80-50% dust.

Thus before the impact a random spot on the nucleus surface was covered with material that contained at least 20% water to a depth of about 30 meters. This is is many times greater than what the EC idea predicts.

N.B.
There is a large asteroid with a confirmed signature of water on its surface (no abundance data yet): 24 Themis.
One third of the mass of the asteroid belt is contained in the dwarf planet Ceres whose shape indicates a rocky core and icy mantle.

 

[Sol88]

More Water on the Moon: Second Instrument Confirms Findings

Now, a second instrument on board India's Chandrayaan-1’s lunar orbiter confirms how the water is being produced. The Sub keV Atom reflecting Analyzer (SARA) corroborates that electrically charged particles from the Sun interact with the oxygen present in some dust grains on the lunar surface to produce water. But the results bring out a new mystery of why some protons get reflected and not absorbed.

snip

The incoming protons are part of the solar wind, a constant stream of particles given off by the Sun. They collide with every celestial object in the Solar System but are usually stopped by the body’s atmosphere. On bodies without such a natural shield, for example asteroids or the planet Mercury, the solar wind reaches the ground. The SARA team expects that these objects too will reflect many of the incoming protons back into space as hydrogen atoms.

And comets??? far as I can tell they're rocks??? Same as the moon asteroids and rocky planets!

The process is just far more energetic on comets (highly charged rocks). Simple really!

 

[Dancing David]

Except you keep ignoring the fact that so far you haven't presented data that comets are rocky.

 

[tusenfem]

And I am still waiting for a quantitative model for the creation of water through this process on a comet. If on the moon there is 1 quart of water produced in a surface the size of a football field (an upper limit set by Sunshine) I wonder how we get such great comas and jets from comets.

Care to present this model, Sol88?

Nah, I did not think so, it is much easier to make wild claims and the bitch about those stupid scientists.

 

[Reality Check]

More Water on the Moon: Second Instrument Confirms Findings

And comets??? far as I can tell they're rocks??? Same as the moon asteroids and rocky planets!

The process is just far more energetic on comets (highly charged rocks). Simple really!

Really simply shown to be wrong you mean .
Only an idiot would think that comets are rocky bodies like asteriods.
Asteriods have measured densities of about 3 g/cc (typical of rocks).
Comets have measured densities of about 0.6 g/cc (typical of a snow ball).

Start with Tim Thompson's posts about the amazing lack of evidence for EC activities on comets

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

Then look at these little points:

• 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.
• Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)

 

[Davidlpf]

One simple question to the EU proponents, there are asteroids that travel in elliptical orbits from lets say from the earth to mars but do not have tail like a comet?
First yes such asteroids exists. Here is a link to a JPL webpage listing potentially dangerous asteroids. All go from within the orbit of the Earth to some with orbits several times the orbit of the Earth. Would you not agree there would be enough potential difference between the 2 points to generate the potential difference needed.
Second most electrical comets theory says there is a change in charge from the outer to the inner solar system and some effect causes a tail and the compostion for asteroid and comets are the same. So if both are composed of the same materials why the differnce between the two?
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/

 

[Reality Check]

One simple question to the EU proponents, there are asteroids that travel in elliptical orbits from lets say from the earth to mars but do not have tail like a comet?
First yes such asteroids exists. Here is a link to a JPL webpage listing potentially dangerous asteroids. All go from within the orbit of the Earth to some with orbits several times the orbit of the Earth. Would you not agree there would be enough potential difference between the 2 points to generate the potential difference needed.
Second most electrical comets theory says there is a change in charge from the outer to the inner solar system and some effect causes a tail and the compostion for asteroid and comets are the same. So if both are composed of the same materials why the differnce between the two?
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/

Welcome to the thread Davidlpf.

Don't expect physical facts to change the minds of EC (or EU) proponents. You are talking to people who think that a body with a density of about 0.6 g/cc (comets) is the same as a body with a density of 3 g/cc (asteriods).

Sol88 in particular has known that many asteroids should be comets according to the EC idea. Sol88 has known this for amost 2 months.
The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. If you use the eccentricity of the main-belt comets (to give EC the best chance of being right) then there are 173,583 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17. There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).

The EC idea is just that - an idea. There is no statement of what distinguishes a comet from an asteriod (other than the tail!). My assumption is that eccentricity is all that matters. But aphelion distance could be a factor too. I wonder why the EC proponents have pointed this out?

 

[Dancing David]

Welcome Davidlpf!

You won't get much of an answer. The current debate is rather, um , limited. It is mainly irrelevant fact attrition by the EC proponent.

 

[Sol88]

One simple question to the EU proponents, there are asteroids that travel in elliptical orbits from lets say from the earth to mars but do not have tail like a comet?
First yes such asteroids exists. Here is a link to a JPL webpage listing potentially dangerous asteroids. All go from within the orbit of the Earth to some with orbits several times the orbit of the Earth. Would you not agree there would be enough potential difference between the 2 points to generate the potential difference needed.
Second most electrical comets theory says there is a change in charge from the outer to the inner solar system and some effect causes a tail and the compostion for asteroid and comets are the same. So if both are composed of the same materials why the differnce between the two?
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/

Do we know the net charge on any of these asteroids? or indeed comets? The region of "space weather" they are in? The solar "wind" speed and density at their location?

Ummm... no.

Would we be able to visually see low level discharge on an asteroid? Such as that that occurs on Mercury?

I'm sorry Davidlpf but I don't know, but I'm sure we will find more (MBC's) the longer we look, as well as more ice on rocky bodies until the difference between icy asteroids and comets is very hard to tell apart!