The Electric Comet theory

[Zeuzzz]

Ugh, another electric thread ? What is it with these folks, anyway ? Why does everything need to be electric ? What's next ? Electric trees ?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=f57c71cddddb59f24ba1b541e7c96d66

Dynamical aspects of electrical trees

Abstract

Electrical trees have been generated both experimentally and through stochastic modelling procedures using fractal analysis in two dimensions. The effect of space charge on the tree dynamics are analysed by solving Poisson's equation and the physical aspects governing the tree propagation are discussed.

"These folks" .... as if it were a sect or something

 

[solrey]

Ugh, another electric thread ? What is it with these folks, anyway ? Why does everything need to be electric ? What's next ? Electric trees ?

Great idea!
How about something like...

Electricity Harvested From Trees!

Electrical engineers Babak Parviz and Brian Otis and undergraduate student Carlton Himes demonstrate an electrical circuit that runs entirely off tree power.

After spending the summer surveying trees, the researchers discovered that big leaf maple trees generated a steady voltage of up to a few hundred millivolts. Powering a circuit, however, required a much higher voltage.

To extract electricity from trees and convert it into useful energy, researchers built a boost converter capable of picking up as little as a 20 millivolt output and storing it to produce a greater output. By hooking it up to a tree using electrodes, the custom-built device was able to generate an output voltage of 1.1 volts, enough to run low-power sensors.

Shocking.

 

[Sol88]

Water water everywhere!!!!

How unexpected! Water on the moon

Transcript:

Music from "Water On The Moon"
Dr. Carle Pieters: Well, the Moon continues to surprise us. Widespread water has been detected on the surface of the Moon. You have to think outside the box on this. This is not what any of us expected a decade ago. But widespread water has been detected on the surface of the Moon

How would this have any bearing on our "dirtysnowball"? after all comets are nothing but ice, 'cos we see it in the spectra!

let's see what Robert Green says

Nancy Atkinson: And the process for how water can actually be on the moon's surface is a little complicated, so I'm going to let Robert Green explain it:

Robert Green: One of the hypotheses were are working with is that there is oxygen in the rocks on the surface of the Moon, there is hydrogen coming from the sun hitting those rocks. Oxygen and hydrogen together make water, so there could be a process with the solar wind carrying the hydrogen which makes water on the surface of the Moon.

but not on Comets???

why not? They did just find a little they found a lot!!

Tony Colaprete: Indeed yes, we found water. We didn't find just a little bit, we found a significant amount. If you remember about a month ago we were talking about teaspoons into glasses from an area about the size of a football field, well now I can say today in the 20-30 meter created by LCROSS, we have maybe about a dozen of these two gallon buckets worth of water.

Nancy Atkinson: Colaprete said they also found signatures of other compounds as well in the impact site in Cabeus Crater, including sodium and carbon dioxide, which they are still analyzing.

Sodium and Carbon dioxide??? where have we seen those before in relation to observed OH and H2O??

Again comets are an electrical phenomena!

 

[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!)
(edited to empahsis that this is about EDM not comet composition before adding the post to the growing collection of EC idea failures)

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

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.

How can the EC idea produce all this water?
My guess based on the inane logic that we see from EC proponents is that they will say the the EDM magically increases by orders of magnitude for some unspecified reason after the impact and then goes back to normal after a few days. They will ignore the fact that EDM produces narrow band X-ray radiation (in bursts) even normally. The gigantic increase in radiation would be easily seen in the X-ray observations of the impact.

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.

 

[Reality Check]

A collection of problems with the EC idea

EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteriods and probably created in the same event as asteriods (according to Thunderbolts).



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."^WPThus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.

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: solrey pointed out in this post that EC idea expects that the voltage potential a comet experiences would be orders of magnitude higher than that of the cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm (10⁹ volts).
"Several" is more than a couple so the EC idea expects a voltage drop around a comet of at least 10¹² volts.

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 as 50 kV in this post. This is 10,000 times less than the thunderstorm potential and 10,000,000 times less that requires by the EC idea.

Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
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.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust.


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 of being wrong and become part of the scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g. Fred L. Whipple.

 

[Reality Check]

Water water everywhere!!!!

How unexpected! Water on the moon

How well predicted decades before the event!!!!

Again comets are an electrical phenomena!

Again Sol88 demonstrates his ignorance.
Comets are enormously more abundant in water than the Moon.

 

[Sol88]

How well predicted decades before the event!!!!


Again Sol88 demonstrates his ignorance.
Comets are enormously more abundant in water than the Moon.

sigh

 

[Sol88]

yeah, but you are right of course RC, there is water on the moon from all the comet impacts, after all they are 20%-80% water with a touch of dust!

How else could there be water on the Moon, eh?

WIKI

Presence of water


The continuous bombardment of the Moon by comets and meteoroids has most likely added small amounts of water to the lunar surface. If so, sunlight would split much of this water into its constituent elements of hydrogen and oxygen, both of which would ordinarily escape into space over time because of the Moon's weak gravity. However, because of the slightness of the axial tilt of the Moon's spin axis to the ecliptic plane—only 1.5°—some deep craters near the poles never receive direct light from the Sun and are thus in permanent shadow (see Shackleton crater). Water molecules that ended up in these craters could be stable for long periods of time.

Clementine has mapped craters at the lunar south pole[26] that are shadowed in this way, and computer simulations suggest that up to 14,000 km² might be in permanent shadow.[19] Results from the Clementine mission bistatic radar experiment are consistent with small, frozen pockets of water close to the surface, and data from the Lunar Prospector neutron spectrometer indicate that anomalously high concentrations of hydrogen are present in the upper metre of the regolith near the polar regions.[27] Estimate for the quantity of water on the Moon is 32 ounces per short ton (1 kg/Mg) of the top layer of Moon's surface.

Water ice can be mined and then split into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen atoms by means of nuclear generators or electric power stations equipped with solar panels. The presence of usable quantities of water on the Moon is an important factor in rendering lunar habitation cost-effective, since transporting water from Earth would be prohibitively expensive. However, recent observations made with the Arecibo planetary radar suggest that some of the near-polar Clementine radar data that were previously interpreted as being indicative of water ice might instead be a result of rocks ejected from young impact craters.[28] The question of how much water there is on the Moon has not been resolved.

In July 2008, small amounts of water were found in the interior of volcanic pearls from the Moon (brought to Earth in 1971 by the Apollo 15 astronauts).[29][30]

On September 24, 2009, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) reported that their first lunar mission, Chandrayaan-1 using NASA's Moon Mineralogy Mapper, found evidence of large quantities of water on the Moon's surface, and that water is still presently being formed.[31][32] The instrument observed an absorption line in the spectrum of sunlight reflected from the Moon, indicating that light of a particular wavelength (around 2.8 micrometres) is being absorbed more readily than other nearby wavelengths. The position and shape of the line indicate the absorption is due to water. A nearby line also revealed the presence of the closely-related molecule hydroxyl, which consists of an oxygen atom with a single hydrogen atom. The exact abundance of water was not determined, but the team believed it could be as high as 1,000 parts per million in the top layer of Lunar soil.

On November 13, 2009, NASA announced the results of the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite, saying that "not just water, but lots of water" had been found by the mission near the southern pole.[33]

So you only have two choices RC spelled out for you here

Water may have been delivered to the Moon over geological timescales by the regular bombardment of water-bearing comets, asteroids and meteoroids or continuously produced in situ by the hydrogen ions (protons) of the solar wind impacting oxygen-bearing minerals.[5]

One happend long ago the other is still happening!

Now where was the water on/in these comets?

 

[dafydd]

Electric Comet,a great 60's band.

 

[dafydd]

(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.

I've just read through the thread.You have the cheek to call other people mental midgets?

 

[Reality Check]

sigh

Once again you prove you inability to understand the simplest fact:

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.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust.

sigh

 

[Reality Check]

yeah, but you are right of course RC, there is water on the moon from all the comet impacts, after all they are 20%-80% water with a touch of dust!
How else could there be water on the Moon, eh?

What an idiotic question.
As the dumb post goes on the Moon has a tiny bit of water on it becasue of comet impacts and capture from the solar wind.

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.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust.

 

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust.

80-50% dust???

This dust? http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news113.html

One of the most remarkable particles found in the Stardust collection is a particle named after the Inca Sun God Inti. Inti is collection of rock fragments that are all related in mineralogical, isotopic and chemical composition to rare components in meteorites called "Calcium Aluminum Inclusions" or CAI's for short. CAI's are the oldest materials that formed in the solar system and they contain a remarkable set of minerals that form at extremely high temperature.

but wait there is more

The comet samples collected by Stardust contain abundant crystalline minerals and in most cases it is clear that they did not form by the predicted mild heating of interstellar dust. Many are too large, and have complex mineralogical and chemical compositions that could not have formed by this process. Instead of the mild heating that astronomers envisioned the comet samples were heated during their formation to severe temperatures, temperatures high enough to melt or vaporize them. The temperatures above 1300 ¼C and the samples were white hot. This is quite remarkable because the some of the ice components of comets appear to have formed only 30 degrees above absolute zero

How much ice has been observed on the surface of the comet RC? (not inferred from spectroscopy)

So how did your high temp dust get on the outside "rind" of a comet?

oh wait it was transported!!

Because the rocky materials in comet Wild 2 formed at such high temperatures, we believe that they formed in the hot inner regions of the young solar system and were then transported all the way to beyond the orbit of Neptune.

How? is not the Sun the biggest gravitational body in the SS?

How about the "soot" found in these dust samples! http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20061119014904data_trunc_sys.shtml

"These forms of carbon don't look like what we find in meteorites, which is something like compacted soot from your chimney. The carbon compounds from this comet are a much more complicated mix of compounds," commented Carnegie's Marc Fries. "It will be an exciting challenge to explain how these compounds formed and wound up in the comet."

exciting challenge to explain!!!
NOT for an electric comet!! This is to be expected!

But there has to be water ice on/in a comet because we see OH in the tail of a comet and there is absolutly no way water can be made from the solar wind imapcting rock!

Except for the moon and maybe asteroids (MBC's)!

 

[AWPrime]

So how did your high temp dust get on the outside "rind" of a comet?

oh wait it was transported!!

How?

Why am I not surprised, that you don't known that the radiation pressure of light can be used for propulsion.

 

[Sol88]

Thunderbolts just say it so much more poeticaly than I can.

As for the water (ice), that was supposed to be the primary constituent of comets. But the anticipated markers of water on the nucleus of Wild 2 are absent. One mineral present in the comet particles is olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate. In the presence of water and even modest heat, olivine will be converted to another mineral, serpentine. Place olivine in the presence of water (steam?) at the temperatures indicated for its formation, and it would be almost instantly converted to serpentine.

According to Stardust principal investigator Donald Brownlee, “no evidence of water has been detected in the particles”. One sign of water, for example, would be the presence of hydrate silicates, Brownlee said, “but so far none of these have been found in the Stardust samples”.

How, then, are we to reconcile the absence of water signatures in the comet dust with the fact that cometary comas often exude an abundance of water (or at least the hydroxyl radical OH). We answered that question in a three-part series, “Deep Impact—Where’s the Water?” (first article here) The OH and whatever actual water may have been present in the coma were manufactured in the coma—an acknowledged “chemical factory”. The vehicle for this process has already been observed—reactions between the oxygen ions in the coma plasma and the hydrogen ions in the solar wind. Charge exchange is now known to occur.

The least we can say today is that most comets contain no appreciable levels of water (i.e., most comets are neither “dirty snowballs” nor “icy dirtballs”), Additionally, it needs to be emphasized that there is no conflict between Stardust and Deep Impact data. Brownlee, who is not prone to overstate theoretical implications, points out that Stardust collected dust that was released directly from the surface in jets. "We're confident that the things coming out [of Comet Wild 2] are the same as those that went in”, he told Space.com.

That means the material has not been processed by the chemical factory of the coma. "We believe that we collected the most pristine samples of a comet”, he said. Hence, the failure to find a signature of water in the comet dust is consistent with all of the facts we have presented in previous discussion.

It is not unreasonable to suggest, therefore, that only one comet model can make sense of what is otherwise a hopelessly confused picture. This model is electric. And thanks to the technological successes of the space age, all of the markers reasonably expected of an electric comet have been found.

So the actual pyshical samples returned to Earth and studied in the lab, showed no signs of water! How surprising for you!

 

[Reality Check]

80-50% dust???

This dust? http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news113.html

How dumb.
Dust is dust. The temperature at which it was formed is an interesting insight into the conditions of the formaito of the Solar System.

How much ice has been observed on the surface of the comet RC? (not inferred from spectroscopy)

What a dumb question.
None. A bright spot on a comet surface is just a bright spot until spectroscopy identifies what emitted the light.

So how did your high temp dust get on the outside "rind" of a comet?

Gravity.

How about the "soot" found in these dust samples! http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20061119014904data_trunc_sys.shtml

exciting challenge to explain!!!
NOT for an electric comet!! This is to be expected!

Are you that ignorant?
The electric comet idea is the dumb idea from a book advertisment site.

 

[Sol88]

Why am I not surprised, that you don't known that the radiation pressure of light can be used for propulsion.

???

Not what Michael Zolensky, Stardust curator and co-investigator at NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston said

The jets then supposedly ejected the heated material out to the Kuiper belt. And here the minerals supposedly mixed with ices to provide the building blocks of Wild 2.

Michael Zolensky, Stardust curator and co-investigator at NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston, put it this way: "We have found very high-temperature minerals, which supports a particular model where strong bipolar jets coming out of the early sun propelled material formed near to the sun outward to the outer reaches of the solar system".

That's electric!

 

[Sol88]

Are you that ignorant?
The electric comet idea is the dumb idea from a book advertisment site.

Owns your behind buttercup!

 

[Reality Check]

Please cite the electric comet paper that predicts the exact forms of carbon

How about the "soot" found in these dust samples! http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20061119014904data_trunc_sys.shtml

exciting challenge to explain!!!
NOT for an electric comet!! This is to be expected!

First asked 14 January 2010
Sol88,
Please cite the electric comet paper that predicts the exact forms of carbon found by Stardust.

Or is this just another bit of ignorance from you?

 

[Reality Check]

Owns your behind buttercup!

Owns your forward dandelion!