The Electric Comet theory

[Dancing David]

Well DD this piece explains it: -

The Comet and the Future of Science http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060227comet.htm

Well, that is the issue I have right there Haig, there are asteroids that do not have comas that come from exactly the same areas as the comets that do show comas, so that is a huge problem for the EC theory.

The fact that there are comets that show comas farther from the sun is in fact a huge problem for the EC theory, there would be little to no charge difference at those distances, and the fact that the comas can continue to grow as a comet leaves the area of the sun is another huge problem for the EC.

For EC to be a theory it should be able to explain why there are bodies that in EC are of the same composition from the same areas but have the crucial difference, it does not at this time do so.

So it is not a theory it is at best a hypothesis and one that in fact contradicts the evidence.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The surface conductivity of comets is likely highly different from meteors. Unless im mistaken meteorites are high in metals, which will conduct very easily and thus adjust to the ambient charge easier thus not developing net charge. Comets may be different.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry Zeuzzz, the issue is that asteroids are what they are , rocky bodies and that comets are what they are, frozen bodies.

I beleive that most asteroids are noy-conductive. 75% are type C and non-metallic.

You can't say that comets are asteroids, which at some point EC says and then say they aren't.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Well asteroids that maintain a radial orbit will be staying at the same potential relative to the sun, such as ones in the asteroid belt. Comets have highly elliptical orbits so are traversing small solar E-field, and maybe will build up differential charge as they do so.

When I say maybe I mean "probably wont", and when I say small E-field I mean "the hypothetical one needed to make the model work". And when I say model I mean "the model that has not yet been actually presented".

 

[Dancing David]

Well asteroids that maintain a radial orbit will be staying at the same potential relative to the sun, such as ones in the asteroid belt. Comets have highly elliptical orbits so are traversing small solar E-field, and maybe will build up differential charge as they do so.

When I say maybe I mean "probably wont", and when I say small E-field I mean "the hypothetical one needed to make the model work". And when I say model I mean "the model that has not yet been actually presented".

Well Zeuzz, the issue is that there are asteroids that have very elliptical orbits and no comas and comets that have less elliptical orbits and have comas. And as mentioned earlier in the thread the four main belt objects that show comas do not have any more eccentric orbits than the other main belt objects.

So it is not an environmental factor.

 

[Siggy_G]

We can dismiss this possibility rather easily. Comets are long-lived. As such, they must expel a miniscule fraction of their mass each orbit. The momentum transfer must therefore be vanishingly small.

Thanks for your response, and a little late from my side (I have a couple of more outstanding responses). Can we say for sure how long-lived comets are and how much matter they eject? In any case, most of this matter is ejected in the opposing direction of gravity, and (according kinetic energy laws) it will counter act gravity. The effect may be very small though, but still a weak contribution to obscure the actual mass of the comet.

They don't need to. Bow shock will drag the cloud of the comet, but will do basically nothing to the nucleus. The cross section to mass ratio is just way too small.

Bow-shock (and a compressed coma frontside) may still cause the coma to inflict some pressure/resistance onto the nucleus, but the effect may admittedly be really small. But I want to underline my main statement underneath, and I think it is an important one, especially since the interplanetary medium becomes increasingly dense closer to the Sun. Even if it is sparse, the comet travels a long distance through this, I'd say, a little resistant medium. While I haven't found any paper discussing this, I'd say the scenario can't be neglected:

"The fact that a fast moving and accelerating comet plunges through interstellar medium and the solar wind [must have a saying]. This would during most of the orbit have a vector that counteracts the direction of gravity, hence slowing down the comet a little compared to a scenario where there is no medium resistance. It would appear as less gravity (F) acts on the two bodies (M*m), and since the Sun's mass (M) is known, the comet's mass (m) will appear smaller than it really is."

 

[Siggy_G]

Well Zeuzz, the issue is that there are asteroids that have very elliptical orbits and no comas and comets that have less elliptical orbits and have comas. And as mentioned earlier in the thread the four main belt objects that show comas do not have any more eccentric orbits than the other main belt objects.

So it is not an environmental factor.

Aren't main-belt comets a thorn in the butt for any cometary model? Is there ANY reason why a dirty iceball should suddenly start vaporizing as mad out there? If they are icy asteroids since the early days of solar system formation, why on Earth hasn't the vaporizing come to and end by now? By the way, are the chemical components actually been detected for these comets/asteroids? Or let me guess, they are assumed and estiamted to be icy...?

The eccentric orbit would have an effect on an electric comet, as it moves in and out through the electric field of the Sun (more eccentric = more contrast / charge). At the top of my head, a comet's chemical components could alter and cause the nucleus to be less willing to charge at some point. This could explain extinct comets and varying type of comets. But I'm currently completelly unarmed for this statement, except for the description itself. I need to do some research into this (which chemical components they may consist of, how discharges can alter them, if there is a saturation threshold for the conductivity/charge etc.).

 

[Dancing David]

Aren't main-belt comets a thorn in the butt for any cometary model? Is there ANY reason why a dirty iceball should suddenly start vaporizing as mad out there?

Hi Siggy_G, who said they are vaporizing like mad, or did you just make that up?

The comas on the four main belt objects are not that large.

What makes you think that they are? What evidence and data say that it is a huge thorn in the butt for the mainstream model?

If they are icy asteroids since the early days of solar system formation, why on Earth hasn't the vaporizing come to and end by now?

Why should it?
What level of vaporization is needed to produce a low level coma, not as much as you might think.

So who says and by what data that this is a problem for the mainstream? Did you even look that one up, who says that it is a problem? What data, what evidence?

BTW , how many times do you think Swift-Tuttle or Hartley-2 have gone around the sun, how about Halley’s ? You do know that comets enter the system from farther out in the Ooort cloud and Kupier belt, some maybe from interstellar space?
Some have hyperbolic orbits, some parabolic, some elliptical, givin the size of Jupiter the same mechanism of capture and stability applies to an incoming cometary body as applies to other mainbelt asteroids.

So what part of mainstream theory says that any object in the main belt has been there since the birth of the solar system?

It is a huge problem for EC comets, there are hundreds of objects in exactly the same part of the solar system going through similar trajectories ALL the time, yet only four show comas,

Why is that Siggy_G?

By the way, are the chemical components actually been detected for these comets/asteroids? Or let me guess, they are assumed and estiamted to be icy...?

Cuts both ways, and yes they show the same composition as many other cometary bodies, in the gases that they give off. But EC has no means to show how a rocky body produces the gases seen in spectrography. Maybe water but there are hundreds.

Why don't you explain why just those four and none of the other main belt objects?
I would say that composition is a very good reason, they contain materials that sublimate and vaporize. They are not even needing to be ‘ice’ as in water, there are many other compounds which will act this way.

The eccentric orbit would have an effect on an electric comet, as it moves in and out through the electric field of the Sun (more eccentric = more contrast / charge). At the top of my head, a comet's chemical components could alter and cause the nucleus to be less willing to charge at some point.

Off the top of your head is not an explanation, the fact is that there are Apollo objects with greater eccentricity than any other objects in the solar system, except for some comets. They are rocky asteroids just like the EC comets, yet they have no comas.

They do not show comas.

This could explain extinct comets and varying type of comets.

Excuse me, but you are still just spinning speculation.

Extinct comets? You just made that up.

But I'm currently completelly unarmed for this statement, except for the description itself. I need to do some research into this (which chemical components they may consist of, how discharges can alter them, if there is a saturation threshold for the conductivity/charge etc.).

Yeah, okay.

So far you haven't explained what makes an Electric Comet shine, but please if you have an idea bring it back, but please remember, why these objects and not all the others in similar orbits?

No speculating what they may be made of unless you care to match the observations that are already made.

Siggy_G there are hundreds of objects that go through exactly the same orbits but they do not have comas, the mainstream gives a coherent explanation, so far the EC does not.

 

[Dancing David]

Siggy_G where does this quote come from?

"The fact that a fast moving and accelerating comet plunges through interstellar medium and the solar wind [must have a saying]. This would during most of the orbit have a vector that counteracts the direction of gravity, hence slowing down the comet a little compared to a scenario where there is no medium resistance. It would appear as less gravity (F) acts on the two bodies (M*m), and since the Sun's mass (M) is known, the comet's mass (m) will appear smaller than it really is."

What bizzarre physics underlie this, does it assume that the comet has a charge opposite that of teh solar medium?

Huh?

Wouldn't that mean the comet would accelerate and go away from the sun faster than it does on its way in?

 

[Siggy_G]

Siggy_G where does this quote come from?

From my previous post on the topic.

What bizzarre physics underlie this, does it assume that the comet has a charge opposite that of teh solar medium?

It has nothing to do with charge. It is nothing bizarre about it, and has to do with resistance of the medium the object travels trough. Drag would be the proper term. It opposes the direction of motion, and opposes the direction of gravity most of the orbit, as explained.

 

[tusenfem]

From my previous post on the topic.



It has nothing to do with charge. It is nothing bizarre about it, and has to do with resistance of the medium the object travels trough. Drag would be the proper term. It opposes the direction of motion, and opposes the direction of gravity most of the orbit, as explained.

Siggy_G, can you please calculate what the drag on the comet is.
Or you could try to find out what the ram pressure is of the solar wind (at Earth e.g. it is in the nano Pascals)
Give us a bone to chew on!

 

[Dancing David]

From my previous post on the topic.



It has nothing to do with charge. It is nothing bizarre about it, and has to do with resistance of the medium the object travels trough. Drag would be the proper term. It opposes the direction of motion, and opposes the direction of gravity most of the orbit, as explained.

Huh, drag produced by what? And veru samll is not going to change the orbital mechanics anyway.

You are not going to have a darg unless you have a charge and a field , right?

And yes refering to drag is 'bizzare', sorry it was not a diplomatic choice of words, but there is not a 'medium' that the comet is traversing.

 

[Siggy_G]

Huh, drag produced by what? And veru samll is not going to change the orbital mechanics anyway.

You are not going to have a darg unless you have a charge and a field , right?

And yes refering to drag is 'bizzare', sorry it was not a diplomatic choice of words, but there is not a 'medium' that the comet is traversing.

Interplanetary medium and/including solar wind are medium, although sparse. I'll try to have a go at tusenfem's challenge of calculating the drag/resistance for a given type of comet. I think I found a paper that briefly mentioned it as well. Stay tuned.

The drag term applies to electromagnetics too (such as that of the electrostatic build-up of space shuttles and the result of triboelectric effect etc.), but I'm simply refering to the mechanics part, similar to fluid and air resistance. Briefly explained in this Wikipedia article.

 

[Dancing David]

That is a mighty sparse thing to call a medium, I think if you were even travelling at relativistic speeds it would not be much of a drag.

I believe most people would call it a vacum.

 

[ben m]

Interplanetary medium and/including solar wind are medium, although sparse. I'll try to have a go at tusenfem's challenge of calculating the drag/resistance for a given type of comet. I think I found a paper that briefly mentioned it as well. Stay tuned.

Don't try to use standard drag equations, like those from aerodynamics, which are always calculated in the continuous flow regime (projectile size larger than gas mean free path). In space you're in the free molecular flow regime. The calculate the drag force in molecular flow, just sum up the momentum transfers to all of the particles you crash into.

 

[Siggy_G]

Don't try to use standard drag equations, like those from aerodynamics, which are always calculated in the continuous flow regime (projectile size larger than gas mean free path). In space you're in the free molecular flow regime. The calculate the drag force in molecular flow, just sum up the momentum transfers to all of the particles you crash into.

Hm, yes, parts of the drag seems to be a negligible issue (the medium isn't really continous/dense enough for significant eddy currents to occur behind it), but the sum of collision is of significance, as with aerodynamics. However, the temperature must be of significance too. Although sparse, 20 000 Kelvin particles (if more or less in opposing direction of motion) must compensate a bit for the sparse density. I couldn't find equations that take that into consideration - except relative motion between the medium and the object. Temperature could be included into that factor. Anyway, I'll work a bit further on it and show what I may find. Also, it's Christmas eve over here, so give it a couple of days

 

[Dancing David]

The relative vectors of the heat expression are going to be randomized for the particles, the effect will be negligible and cancel out, I believe it is only the relative momentum/mass of impacted particles that that matters.

So let us say that our model comet is made of one mole of interplanetary medium and that it is a flat disk traveling face on, 10 cm in diameter. Pi x r²=3.14 x 25=78.5

So the cross section impact is going to be 5 particles per cm² near the earth, so 392.5 particle for each centimeter traversed.

So over a km that would be 3.92 x 10⁸ particles, so 30 km/sec for an average comet, so over an hour that would be 30 x 60 x 60 x 60 x 3.92 x 10⁸ or 6.46 x 10⁶ or 2.54 x 10¹³ particles per hour.

Now Avogadro’s number is 6.02 x 10²³, so if we assume that this model is accurate and that I did the math correctly, always a risk!

Then we get that the difference in size momentum to impact momentum is 10¹⁰ or 10,000,000,000 and this is for a very strange and flat plate type comet traveling face on to the medium.

Given that it would take about 1, 141, 552 years for the impact momentum to equal out the innate momentum of the object.

Now let us say that the model comet is pure carbon, it would be a disk of about 12 grams in mass, with a plate section of ten cm. diameter, so a very thin disk of carbon traveling face on to the interstellar medium is going to take a million years or so to stop in its orbit.

 

[Siggy_G]

Thanks for your take on it, DD. Cool. I think there may have been a minor error among the conversion calculation, so I'll stick to SI units in my calculation (meters, seconds etc.) to be sure. I'll also try to use values for an average comet, and eventually see the effects in light of asteroidal densities. I did a few approaches, but here is the main one:

Take a comet of 10 km diameter and (3,14 * (5 km)²) 7.85 * 10⁴ m² surface area.

The interplanetary medium having an average density of 5 particles per cm³ at 1 AU, means 5,0 * 10⁶ per m³.

Onto the cometary surface there will be:
(7.85 * 10⁴) * (5,0 * 10⁶) = 3,9 * 10¹¹ colliding particles per meter traversed.

Take travelling speed of 30 km/s for an average comet. (3,9 * 10¹¹) * (3.0 * 10⁴) = 1,2 * 10¹⁶ colliding particles per second.

However, the medium is not static. At average it moves radially at 400 km/s, towards the apporaching comet. This gives:
(1,2 * 10¹⁶ ) * (4.0 * 10⁵) = 4.8 * 10²¹ colliding particles per second.

Regarding the mass and density of the medium. Excluding electrons, the majority of the solar wind particles are protons (a trace are heavier elements ripped off the solar surface).

(Solar Center - on solar wind)

Solar wind density (p):
5,0 * 10⁶ (particles per m³ solar wind).

proton mass = 1g / 6.022 * 10²³ = 1.6605 * 10^-20 kg

p (solarwind) = (1.6605 * 10^-20 kg) * (5,0 * 10⁶) = 8.3 * 10^-14 kg/m³
The drag formula has to do with the force experienced from colliding particles (medium density) and relative speed between object and medium.

The object's shape is indicated through the drag coefficient C (its aeordynamic shape) but since all of the colliding particles will transfer their kinetic energy to the comet (as opposed to aerodynamic collision) this value will be set to 1.0.

u (object's velocity relative to the medium): 3.0 * 10⁴ + 4.0 * 10⁵ = 4.3 * 10⁵ m/s

A (surface area) = 7.85 * 10⁴ m²
F(drag) = ½ (8.3 * 10^-14) * (4.3 * 10⁵)² * 1.0 * 7.85 * 10⁴ m² = 60.3 N

Dividing by the comet's mass (see below), we also get the (negative) acceleration:
a = 60.3 N / (8.7 * 10¹¹ kg) = 6.9 * 10^-10 m/s²
The Sun's gravitational acceleration:

g(sun1AU) = ((6.67300 * 10^-11) * (1.9891×10³⁰)) / (1.496 * 10¹¹)² = (1.32 * 10²⁰) / (2.24 * 10²²) = 5.9 * 10^-3 m/s²
If we assume that the comet IS consisting of asteroidal matter density (p) of 3,0 g/cm^3 (3.0 * 10⁶ kg/m³), then we have:

= 2,9 * 10⁵ m³
m (comet) = V*p = (2,9 * 10⁵) * (3.0 * 10⁶) = 8.7 * 10¹¹ kg

The gravity force acted onto the comet is then:
F(gravity) = m*a = m(comet)* g(Sun1AU) = (8.7 * 10¹¹) * (0.65 *10^-3) = 5.7 * 10⁸ N

CONCLUSION: The drag from the interstaller medium is really tiny in comparison to the gravity force at 1AU. Far less than suspected. For objects of rock size and larger, it seems mechanical drag (as with radiation pressure) can be neglected even for the relatively high speed an incoming comet and the opposing medium typically have. However, the density and speed of the solar wind can vary/fluctate, and the resistant force/acceleration may increase above what is calculated here (*2). Also, the more dusty interplanetary medium around Pluto's distance may have a different resistance due to way lower gravity from the Sun and higher or same density (due to additional dust) of the medium.

Related:

*1) Measuring the Interplanetary Medium with a Solar Sail

*2) Extremely high speed solar wind: 29-30 October 2003 (1850 km/s)

*3) Directly measured limit on the interplanetary matter density from Pioneer 10 and 11

 

[Siggy_G]

Including this one as well:
ENERGY APPROACH (of the drag force question)

Solar wind density (p): 5,0 * 10⁶ (particles per m³ solar wind).

proton mass = 1g / 6.022 * 10²³ = 1.6605 * 10^-20 kg

p(solarwind) = (1.6605 * 10^-20 kg) * (5,0 * 10⁶) = 8.3 * 10^-14 kg/m³
medium mass traversed/collided per second:
(surface area) * (relative motion between comet and medium) * (medium density) =

(suffix test: m² * m/s * kg/m³ = kg/s)

(7.85 * 10⁴) * (4.3 * 10⁵) * (8.3 * 10^-14) = 2.8 * 10^-5 kg/s

Opposing kinetic energy (i.e. medium) per second:
E(k) = ½ * m * v^2 = ½ * (2.8 * 10^-5) * (4.3 * 10⁵)^2 = 2.6 * 10⁶ J

Comet's kinetic energy = ½ * (8.7 * 10¹¹) * (4.3 * 10⁵)^2 = 8.0 * 10²⁷ J

I didn't carry one with this one as I went to drag force equations. But I guess this implies a similar contrast as when using the drag force and gravity equations. However, the comet's kinetic energy here is its accumulated velocity and not per second, so don't compare the order of magnitudes directly (if I did the math right, that is).

 

[Dancing David]

In other words the interstellar medium will have no effect upon the motion of teh comet and is not going to cause it to orbit as though it has less mass, now is it Siggy_G?

You are not going to have a rocky body sudenly orbiting as though it has less mass, now are you?