Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[jonesdave116]

^In all fairness RC, it is a religious thing. Can't blame people for hanging on to their religion. No amount of evidence will convince a YEC that the Earth is ~4.5 Ga. So why should Sol and Haig be any different?
Velikovsky is God. All hail Velikovsky (*&^%wit).

 

[tusenfem]

I now have both papers McKenna-Lawlor et al. and Ibadov (but scanning the latter, and his ideas about an ever increasing double layer strength, makes me wonder how it ever got through the review process).

 

[jonesdave116]

New paper in A&A:
Sunset jets observed on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko sustained by subsurface thermal lag
X. Shi et al.
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2016/02/aa27123-15/aa27123-15.html

Free until 26th Jan. Will need a free EDPS account to access it.

 

[tusenfem]

New paper in A&A:
Sunset jets observed on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko sustained by subsurface thermal lag
X. Shi et al.
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2016/02/aa27123-15/aa27123-15.html

Free until 26th Jan. Will need a free EDPS account to access it.

cool, thanks for the link
my next paper is on Venus and mirror mode waves

 

[jonesdave116]

cool, thanks for the link
my next paper is on Venus and mirror mode waves

I shall await it with.........trepidation!
By the way, one of the resident EU nutters on the Rosetta blog seemingly knows far more than you, or any of the other members RPC team, when it comes to plasma: http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/0...ttas-comet-confirmed-as-water/#comment-598472
Mind you, he's had to have IR spectroscopy and Keplerian orbital dynamics explained to him numerous times. So he might be wrong!

 

[Matthew Cline]

Question: so the diamagnetic cavity around the nucleus means that not only is there no electricity flowing on the nucleus, but that the solar wind isn't reaching it either?

 

[tusenfem]

I shall await it with.........trepidation!
By the way, one of the resident EU nutters on the Rosetta blog seemingly knows far more than you, or any of the other members RPC team, when it comes to plasma: http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/0...ttas-comet-confirmed-as-water/#comment-598472
Mind you, he's had to have IR spectroscopy and Keplerian orbital dynamics explained to him numerous times. So he might be wrong!

Ah the original, well he might read the wrong papers, or ... well he only reads the blog, he might be a genius though

 

[tusenfem]

Question: so the diamagnetic cavity around the nucleus means that not only is there no electricity flowing on the nucleus, but that the solar wind isn't reaching it either?

Yes. the cavity is produced by gas coming out of the nucleus. Note I say gas, because neutrals vs. ions is about 10⁶. That gas pushes away the solar wind, including the magnetic field, through solar-wind-ion/cometary-neutral collisions.
So, no, the solar wind is not reaching the comet's surface as long as there is a cavity.
The cavity paper has been resubmitted after a few minor corrections, so I assume it will be published soon in Annales Geophysicae (where you can get it for free!).

 

[Sol88]

@Tusenfem

I'm interested, are you able to tell me more?

These oppositely directed magnetic fields have to be separated by current sheets and bring the possibility of magnetic reconnection in the cometary coma (see e.g. Veri- gin et al. , 1987 ; Kirsch et al. , 1989 , 1990 ).

question is where is the source of this current and how is it maintained.

Also, I see you have a figure of 66 µA m^-2 for a current density, question is how many m² is this over?

 

[tusenfem]

@Tusenfem

I'm interested, are you able to tell me more?

question is where is the source of this current and how is it maintained.

Also, I see you have a figure of 66 µA m^-2 for a current density, question is how many m² is this over?

The source of the current is the oppositely directed magnetic field of the solar wind draped around the comet. Then following Maxwell-Ampère's Law (neglecting the displacement current)

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex? \nabla \times {\bf B} = \mu_0 {\bf J}

(seems LaTeX is not working)

The 66 μA/m² is most likely unrealistic upper limit of the current because of the slow motion of Rosetta (as stated in the paper) and the much faster plasma velocity will reduce this current by a factor 10⁴.

It will probably be over a lot of m², you know the thickness estimates, multiply it with a reasonable length.

 

[jonesdave116]

The source of the current is the oppositely directed magnetic field of the solar wind draped around the comet. Then following Maxwell-Ampère's Law (neglecting the displacement current)

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex? \nabla \times {\bf B} = \mu_0 {\bf J}

(seems LaTeX is not working)

The 66 μA/m² is most likely unrealistic upper limit of the current because of the slow motion of Rosetta (as stated in the paper) and the much faster plasma velocity will reduce this current by a factor 10⁴.

It will probably be over a lot of m², you know the thickness estimates, multiply it with a reasonable length.

Not sure how you've got time for this, Tus; you should be looking for the magnetic field of the nucleus, as suggested by the idiot Originaljohn in the ESA blog! They all know it's there. All you have to do is find it. Can't be difficult. And, of course, it always goes without saying that EU cranks always know more about plasmas than the 'mainstream'. Despite not understanding IR spectroscopy, or Keplerian orbital dynamics. They are the future! A science-free free for all, where any b*llocks gets a look in, despite the total lack of evidence or observation.
Deary me. No wonder nobody takes them seriously.

 

[Sol88]

The source of the current is the oppositely directed magnetic field of the solar wind draped around the comet. Then following Maxwell-Ampère's Law (neglecting the displacement current)

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex? \nabla \times {\bf B} = \mu_0 {\bf J}

(seems LaTeX is not working)

The 66 μA/m² is most likely unrealistic upper limit of the current because of the slow motion of Rosetta (as stated in the paper) and the much faster plasma velocity will reduce this current by a factor 10⁴.

It will probably be over a lot of m², you know the thickness estimates, multiply it with a reasonable length.

That my friend, is a lot of m² and quite the electric current!

and is that current generated by the comet moving thru the Suns radial electric field?

 

[Sol88]

Magnetic field rotations in the pile-up region of comets are
of interest, as they are usually the “memory” of the magnetic
field of the solar wind conditions earlier. At Comet 1P/Halley
a large set of nested draping regions were found (Raederet al.1987).

These oppositely directed magnetic fields have
to be separated by current sheets and bring the possibility of
magnetic reconnection in the cometary coma

LINK

Still no double layer, ay?

Spectral analysis is performed on these three intervals. It is clear from Fig. 11 right panel, that the three intervals have different spectral content: the first interval (blue) has a peak at f . 6 mHz and a minor peak at f . 13 mHz, the second interval (green) shows a plateau-like structure around f . 10 mHz; the third interval (red) shows a clear double peaked structure at f . 9 and f . 19 mHz with a minor peak at f . 51 mHz, which explains the beat-mode that can be seen in the red trace in Fig. 11 left panel. It is not very clear from the LAP P1 current to deduce that these structures are mirror- modes, although the Lucek method indicates that they are

Noisy things ay!

 

[Sol88]

Nested draping: The change in direction of the magnetic field as ob- served in the Rosetta data does not show up clearly in the propagated solar wind magnetic field. The Tao- tangential field seems to go negative for a short period in the non-shifted data in Fig. 4 at the beginning of 6 June. The Opitz-Dósa-radial magnetic field basically shows a heliospheric current sheet crossing. Because of the draping and hanging-up of the magnetic field around the comet, it is difficult to find a one-to-one correlation between the solar wind field signatures and the draped field signatures. The layer of differently directed field at Rosetta may be the result of an older interval out- side that presented in the figure. The difference in field strength can be explained through the compression by the solar wind pressure

LINK

Still no double layers??? Interesting the behavoiur of this particular plasma.

 

[Sol88]

Oh....I see why

Because of the assumed slow convection velocity 1L remains small, an upper limit for 1L can be found under the assumption of frozen in fields and a con- vection velocity of . 10 km s

Frozen in magnetic fields......Whoops

 

[Sol88]

Ionization increase: Looking at a longer data set of the IES ion energy spec- tra, it is clear that this increase in counts and energy of the ions is limited to a period of . 18 h, which corre- sponds to the increased solar wind dynamic pressure, which is caused by an increase of the solar wind den- sity. This means that an enhanced number of solar wind electrons is also entering the pile-up region, which in- creases collisions and ionization as observed by RPC. After this period the IES densities follow the periodic- ity in the COPS neutral density, indicating that the in- creased ionization was indeed generated by the higher solar wind density

Why did the solar wind become more dense???

Still no double layer ay?

 

[tusenfem]

That my friend, is a lot of m² and quite the electric current!

and is that current generated by the comet moving thru the Suns radial electric field?

It might be quite a current, but total current is meaningless in space plasma physics.

If you would read you would have read that the current is driven by the oppositely directed magnetic field. The magnetic field, frozen in the solar wind, is transported towards the comet and hangs-up in its ionosphere [Hannes Alfvén, 1959, and still valid]. As the interplanetary magnetic field changes direction, the draped field also changes direction, is however compressed by the dynamic pressure of the solar wind.

As very well known in plasma physics since Maxwell, when oppositely directed magnetic fields are close to each other they will have a current sheet in between, with a current density given by Maxwell-Ampère's Law as in my first post.

There is no need for an electric field, let alone the non-existent "solar radial electric field."

 

[jonesdave116]

That my friend, is a lot of m² and quite the electric current!

and is that current generated by the comet moving thru the Suns radial electric field?

No. The Sun doesn't have an 'electric field'. We'd have noticed it by now if it did. Perhaps you are getting confused with the magnetic field. You will notice, if you bother to look, that the phenomena seen in the comae of comets were predicted and modelled long before we sent any spacecraft to measure them (Tusenfem can probably give a long list of references, which will include Alfven). You will also notice that none of those predictions or models took into account any EU ideas.

 

[tusenfem]

Still no double layer, ay?

If I would have thought there would be a DL, don't you think I would have written that in the paper?

Noisy things ay!

No not at all, if you actually would look at the power spectrum, there is very little noise.

Still no double layers??? Interesting the behavoiur of this particular plasma.

Sheesh man! stop with the double layers nonsense!
Nested draping has absolutely NOTHING to do with the creation of double layers.

Why did the solar wind become more dense???

Because the solar wind behaves like that, sometimes the density increases, sometimes the field increases, whatever.

Still no double layer ay?

sigh

 

[jonesdave116]

Just to put this into perspective: as of January 28, 2016, despite numerous missions to comets, and countless observations of them from Earth and space-based instruments, there is not a single observation or discovery that fits with anything the EU geniuses have predicted about comets (insofar as they ever predict anything).
Yet they still know better than countless well qualified people who have been studying them for decades, in many cases.

tl;dr? EU is still an evidence-free zone.