• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part VI

Here we go!

Dark comets


What is a comet?​


Traditionally, the difference between comets and asteroids is that comets have beautiful cometary tails. These tails form because comets have ice in them, while asteroids supposedly do not.

What is a nongravitational acceleration?​


These dark comets have nongravitational accelerations like comets, so they experience a rocketlike recoil from comet outgassing. However, they don't have the dusty tails that most comets have.

Dark comets!!

:dl:
 
Dark comets!!

:dl:
Tell me, Sol, is the solar wind visible to the eye?

No, it is not. Why not? Because it's almost entirely hydrogen, and hydrogen at low densities is essentially invisible in the optical band.

So, what happens if an object outgasses hydrogen? Will you be able to see that hydrogen outgassing? No, you will not.

It's not actually a mystery. It's quite well understood, and quite ordinary. You don't understand because you don't actually know any science at all.
 

Here we go!

Dark comets




Traditionally, the difference between comets and asteroids is that comets have beautiful cometary tails. These tails form because comets have ice in them, while asteroids supposedly do not.





Dark comets!!

:dl:
What are they outgassing, Sol? If there is little dust to entrain, then there is no dust tail illimunated by sunlight. Most comets are dusty. So, we can see the tails in visible light. Sunlight is like that. Visible. Otherwise you need to look at these things spectroscopically. And find that they are outgassing water vapour. Among other stuff. The only reason that you see the ion tail in most comets is because of CO, which fluoresces at a wavelength that is in the visible range. You see the dust tail because sunlight reflects from the dust. And anything that is outgassing is subject to non-gravitational effects.
 
The dust is created by the solar wind protons interacting with the surface silicon, thereby creating water and dust :)
Protons?

What about the ELECTRONS?

They seem to be doing the heavy lifting here, not the protons. Something about them being of less mass than protons or somesuch.

Comets are pretty dusty. Some of this dust is very well consolidated, apparently.

Pretty dry as well the 'ol dirtsnowballs!
 
The dust is created by the solar wind protons interacting with the surface silicon, thereby creating water and dust :)

Well kinda sorta...

Charging effects on Rosetta dust measurements

ABSTRACT​


Dust particles released from comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko collect electrostatic charges. Their motion is influenced by the electric fields induced by the flow of the solar wind and by the charging of the Rosetta spacecraft itself. Dust grains with sufficiently low tensile strength might even be destroyed en route from the nucleus to Rosetta. A simple model of the plasma environment is discussed here to enable simultaneously following the charging and the dynamics of dust particles as a function of the heliocentric distance of the comet, the distance between Rosetta and the nucleus, the asymmetry in gas production between the northern and southern hemispheres of the nucleus, the amplitude and timing of ultraviolet flares, and the possible outbursts intermittently increasing the production rate of the comet. The electrostatic disruption, and the combination of attractive and repulsive forces between the dust grains and Rosetta might significantly alter the conclusions about the size and spatial distributions of dust grains released from 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. These calculations are presented to help assess the effects of dust and spacecraft charging in the analysis and interpretation of dust measurements by Rosetta.

Might significantly alter the conclusions?
Well, maybe Horányi and Deca should sit down and have a good chat to Attree et al in relation too

Localized ejection of dust and chunks on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: testing how comets work​

Gas blah blah sublimation blah blah dirtysnowballs blah blah....

But then....How do comets work?

Overall then, important questions about the cometary activity mechanism still remain unanswered, and it is still a struggle to explain how dust of various sizes is broken off and lifted from the surface. Moving from the local simulation of individual patches to the global production rates measured by Rosetta also remains challenging.

You still don't know?

Hint...the DUST IS CHARGED :)

The dust is created by the solar wind protons interacting with the surface silicon, thereby creating water and dust :) - tusenfem
 
Well kinda sorta...

Charging effects on Rosetta dust measurements



Might significantly alter the conclusions?
Well, maybe Horányi and Deca should sit down and have a good chat to Attree et al in relation too

Localized ejection of dust and chunks on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: testing how comets work​



But then....How do comets work?



You still don't know?

Hint...the DUST IS CHARGED :)
And what has any of that got to do with the electric comet woo? Do I need to explain to you what that woo says? Again?
 
You have a problem with your assertion jd116, on dirtysnowballs.

Localized ejection of dust and chunks on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: testing how comets work


This is a general problem in models where CO drives erosion, alongside difficulties in simultaneously ejecting chunks from deep while eroding the surface layer. We therefore conclude that ejection of chunks by CO must be a localized phenomenon, occurring separately in space or time from surface erosion and water emission. Simulating the global production rates of gas, dust, and chunks from a comet thus remains challenging, while the activity mechanism is shown to be very sensitive to the material structure (i.e. porosity and diffusivity) at various scales.

How is the dust/water coma produced in a comet? Your model does not work...

When a comet gets close to the sun, these ices heat up and sublimate, which means they turn from ice into gas. The gas heats up because of the sunlight and is then blown off the comet's surface in a process called outgassing. This outgassing brings with it rubble and small dust grains, which reflect sunlight.

This is the "dirtysnowball" model.

but

Asteroids, on the other hand, do not have cometary tails. Presumably, they are more like classic rocks—without ice on their surfaces.

This is generally accepted.

BUT

These dark comets have nongravitational accelerations like comets, so they experience a rocketlike recoil from comet outgassing. However, they don't have the dusty tails that most comets have.

So, ummmm SUBLIMATION is a bust!


PLASMA - DOUBLE LAYERS - BIRKELAND CURRENTS

The source of electrons at comet 67P


.
 
You have a problem with your assertion jd116, on dirtysnowballs.

Localized ejection of dust and chunks on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: testing how comets work




How is the dust/water coma produced in a comet? Your model does not work...



This is the "dirtysnowball" model.

but



This is generally accepted.

BUT



So, ummmm SUBLIMATION is a bust!


PLASMA - DOUBLE LAYERS - BIRKELAND CURRENTS

The source of electrons at comet 67P


.
Gibberish. Sublimation is observed.
 
Gibberish. Sublimation is observed.

Is that all you have?

When a comet gets close to the sun, these ices heat up and sublimate, which means they turn from ice into gas. The gas heats up because of the sunlight and is then blown off the comet's surface in a process called outgassing. This outgassing brings with it rubble and small dust grains, which reflect sunlight.

Traditionally, the difference between comets and asteroids is that comets have beautiful cometary tails. These tails form because comets have ice in them, while asteroids supposedly do not.

Righto...So you are a traditionalist!


Sublimation HAS always been inferred, never observed.

ABSTRACT​


We extend an existing thermophysical activity model of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko to include pressure build-up inside the pebbles making up the nucleus. We test various quantities of H

O and CO⁠, in order to simulate the material inside and outside of proposed water enriched bodies (WEBs). We find that WEBs can reproduce the peak water flux observed by Rosetta, but that the addition of a time-resolved heat-flow reduces the water fluxes away from perihelion as compared to the previously assumed


Even if there were sublimation, ain't doing what you (jd116) imagine.

Seem to struggle coming to grips with the observations and experiments of the most study comet.

I mean you don't have to believe me or N Attree et al

We therefore come to the conclusion that CO driven erosion cannot dominate 67P’s surface area, otherwise Rosetta would have observed much higher CO production rates.

Sublimating dirtysnowballs are a bust my friend. :D







.
 
In case you are confused jd116...

Overall then, important questions about the cometary activity mechanism still remain unanswered, and it is still a struggle to explain how dust of various sizes is broken off and lifted from the surface. Moving from the local simulation of individual patches to the global production rates measured by Rosetta also remains challenging.
Do you understand?

"And? Why do you think they have dust tails? Because there is dust." jd116

How's the dust broken off and lifted from the surface, again jd116?

Further, the addition of time-resolved heat-flow, versus the static equilibrium model of Fulle et al. (2019, 2020a), leads to a reduced water production rate away from perihelion, which must be compensated by additional factors such as extended water sources or a different diffusivity within the pebbles to originally assumed.

There is NO extended water sources, so diffusivity is your only hope?

Slice n dice any way you want sublimation is a bust!

:D
 
Is that all you have?





Righto...So you are a traditionalist!


Sublimation HAS always been inferred, never observed.




Even if there were sublimation, ain't doing what you (jd116) imagine.

Seem to struggle coming to grips with the observations and experiments of the most study comet.

I mean you don't have to believe me or N Attree et al



Sublimating dirtysnowballs are a bust my friend. :D







.
Sublimation is observed. Learn to read. There are a shed load of papers reporting the observations.
 
The dust is created by the solar wind protons interacting with the surface silicon, thereby creating water and dust :)

Oxygen is in the mix too! (y)
Sublimation is observed. Learn to read. There are a shed load of papers reporting the observations.

Yeah, that's what was thought MUST happen. Then we ran experiments back here on terra firma.

You were wrong... build a bridge.
 
Link to these experiments?


Localized ejection of dust and chunks on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: testing how comets work

Overall then, important questions about the cometary activity mechanism still remain unanswered, and it is still a struggle to explain how dust of various sizes is broken off and lifted from the surface. Moving from the local simulation of individual patches to the global production rates measured by Rosetta also remains challenging.

Sublimation is a bust!
 

You said experiments. These were not experiments. These were simulations. You know, that stuff you keep calling "mathemagik".

And sublimation isn't a bust. You clearly didn't understand the conclusion of that article (surprising no one), but the basic gist is that in order to run the simulations, you have to make a guess about the structure of the dust, chunks, and water/CO2 ices in the comet. We don't know these structures, we are guessing at them. If you guess wrong, then the simulation will give you a result that doesn't match observations. And it's hard to guess right, because there's a lot of different possibilities. Nothing in any of this suggests that sublimation isn't happening, and isn't ejecting solid material from the comet.
 
You said experiments. These were not experiments. These were simulations. You know, that stuff you keep calling "mathemagik".

And sublimation isn't a bust. You clearly didn't understand the conclusion of that article (surprising no one), but the basic gist is that in order to run the simulations, you have to make a guess about the structure of the dust, chunks, and water/CO2 ices in the comet. We don't know these structures, we are guessing at them. If you guess wrong, then the simulation will give you a result that doesn't match observations. And it's hard to guess right, because there's a lot of different possibilities. Nothing in any of this suggests that sublimation isn't happening, and isn't ejecting solid material from the comet.

Yeah nah it does!

MUPUS says comets are very well consolidated "DUST".

No guessing needed but I see hope is in your toolkit as well.

Did you miss...

Overall, we find that the model of Fulle et al. (2019) can reproduce the peak water flux observed by Rosetta at 67P at perihelion, while also generating continuous dust-lifting activity that replenishes the surface over at-least three orbital cycles. The total modelled erosion and ejected dust-mass are larger than the observations, however, necessitating an active area smaller than the total comet surface area, or very large quantities of dust fallback. Further, the addition of time-resolved heat-flow, versus the static equilibrium model of Fulle et al. (2019, 2020a), leads to a reduced water production rate away from perihelion, which must be compensated by additional factors such as extended water sources or a different diffusivity within the pebbles to originally assumed.

Sublimation is a bust. Time to move on.

The dust is CHARGED. Lets start there, ay?


ABSTRACT


Dust particles released from comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko collect electrostatic charges.

The electrostatic disruption, and the combination of attractive and repulsive forces between the dust grains and Rosetta might significantly alter the conclusions about the size and spatial distributions of dust grains released from 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

in contrast too... my bolding.


Overall, we find that the model of Fulle et al. (2019) can reproduce the peak water flux observed by Rosetta at 67P at perihelion, while also generating continuous dust-lifting activity that replenishes the surface over at-least three orbital cycles. The total modelled erosion and ejected dust-mass are larger than the observations, however, necessitating an active area smaller than the total comet surface area, or very large quantities of dust fallback. Further, the addition of time-resolved heat-flow, versus the static equilibrium model of Fulle et al. (2019, 2020a), leads to a reduced water production rate away from perihelion, which must be compensated by additional factors such as extended water sources or a different diffusivity within the pebbles to originally assumed.


They didn't even mention electric fields and charged dust (Complex PLASMA), why?







.
 
You said experiments. These were not experiments. These were simulations. You know, that stuff you keep calling "mathemagik".

And sublimation isn't a bust. You clearly didn't understand the conclusion of that article (surprising no one), but the basic gist is that in order to run the simulations, you have to make a guess about the structure of the dust, chunks, and water/CO2 ices in the comet. We don't know these structures, we are guessing at them. If you guess wrong, then the simulation will give you a result that doesn't match observations. And it's hard to guess right, because there's a lot of different possibilities. Nothing in any of this suggests that sublimation isn't happening, and isn't ejecting solid material from the comet.


The experiment are OLD. google away!

Laboratory investigation of the sublimation of comet nucleus models


This is a general problem in models where CO drives erosion, alongside difficulties in simultaneously ejecting chunks from deep while eroding the surface layer.

This paper is just more confirmation.

What is a comet and how do they work?

This is the state of were the mainstream cometary science is... after all this time!

Damn :bwall







.
 
Do you?

Of course you don't. You don't believe in math. One wonders how you manage money.

What is a comet and how do they work?

Is a comet a dirtysnowball? No

Do they "work" by sublimating this dirty(dusty) ice? No

So, What is a comet and how do they work?
 
What is a comet and how do they work?

Is a comet a dirtysnowball? No

Do they "work" by sublimating this dirty(dusty) ice? No

So, What is a comet and how do they work?
What is the earth? Is it a sphere? No.

Is it orbiting the sun in the vacuum of space? No.

You're saying things are wrong that you haven't actually shown are wrong. And you have no actual model to substitute for the scientific consensus, only some buzz words. You're essentially just a flat earther, but with a different pet obsession.
 
What is the earth? Is it a sphere? No.

Is it orbiting the sun in the vacuum of space? No.

You're saying things are wrong that you haven't actually shown are wrong. And you have no actual model to substitute for the scientific consensus, only some buzz words. You're essentially just a flat earther, but with a different pet obsession.

That's your answer to "What is a comet and how do they work?"


deserves a


:dl:



Anyway, you gave it a go. You were wrong.


,
 
Anyway, you gave it a go. You were wrong.
I didn't give it a go, because I don't need to. Actual experts on comets have, and contrary to your claims, they have not been proven wrong.

No EUtards have anything even resembling a model for comets. All you have is buzzwords.

Do the math.
 
What is a comet and how do they work?

Is a comet a dirtysnowball? No

Do they "work" by sublimating this dirty(dusty) ice? No

So, What is a comet and how do they work?
Why was 1000s of tonnes of ice ejected from the Tempel 1 impact, woo boy? Why was Hartley 2 surrounded by a literal snowstorm of ice? Stop talking bollocks, and actually answer some questions. Your ignorance of science is legendary.
 
Why was 1000s of tonnes of ice ejected from the Tempel 1 impact, woo boy? Why was Hartley 2 surrounded by a literal snowstorm of ice? Stop talking bollocks, and actually answer some questions. Your ignorance of science is legendary.

I hear you wailing and repeating the mantra but you either have a special unique comet or they have made assumption that have turned out to be incorrect.

or as ziggurat says

you have to make a guess about the structure of the dust, chunks, and water/CO2 ices in the comet

Just guess!
 
Why was 1000s of tonnes of ice ejected from the Tempel 1 impact, woo boy? Why was Hartley 2 surrounded by a literal snowstorm of ice? Stop talking bollocks, and actually answer some questions. Your ignorance of science is legendary.

Dust too? Most comets are dusty - jd116
 
Why was 1000s of tonnes of ice ejected from the Tempel 1 impact, woo boy? Why was Hartley 2 surrounded by a literal snowstorm of ice? Stop talking bollocks, and actually answer some questions. Your ignorance of science is legendary.

I had totally forgotten about Q (Haser model)

According to this expression and using Q(H2O) = (1 − 2) × 1028 s-1 (Biver et al. 2010, priv. comm.) and Afρ from results in Table 3, we compute a gas-to-dust mass ratio of ~3−6, a relatively gas-rich comet.

So I see you are incorrect in the "guess's" again.
 
Back
Top Bottom