Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
tusenfem said:
don't expect sol to remember anything you write
Click to expand...



Spritzer sees Olivine in the form of Forsterite in gas surrounding forming stars.

Gas gas? or plasma gas?

Can we make Olivine and Forsterite gas here on Earth?
 
Why not follow the link and read for yourself

Tiny crystals of a green mineral called olivine are falling down like rain on a burgeoning star, according to observations from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope.

This is the first time such crystals have been observed in the dusty clouds of gas that collapse around forming stars. Astronomers are still debating how the crystals got there, but the most likely culprits are jets of gas blasting away from the embryonic star.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Did you miss my post? you must have to bring this up again so soon.

Spritzer sees Olivine in the form of Forsterite in gas surrounding forming stars.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer20110526.html
Click to expand...


So comet formed around stars then Captain Swoop?

what about the clays and carbonates?


or why not just say WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY(comets) CAME FROM and HOW WERE THEY FORMED????

But hey YOU know we are just at 67P to confirm what you already know!
 
Sol88 said:
Cool, lets go for the Type 3 Explosively released highly collimated jets as seen around perihelion at 67P?

How are they do YOU think they formed?

Remembering what was being discussed about the latest finding

Oh, and just because it gets up everyone's nose, the implication they are highly porous must include clays, olivine, forsterite, carbonates, silicates, all the volatiles, etc
Click to expand...

No joy then JD116?


Do you, Jonesdavid116, know how type 3's are produced, sustained, accelerated and collimated?
 
Reality Check said:
That is wrong, Sol88, the repeat of lies, ignorance and delusions over the last 6 years means that you are a permanently in my bad book :jaw-dropp!

The point is that you are still lying :eye-poppi.
Your "clays, olivine, forsterite, carbonates, silicates, etc." are expected in comets. Comets are made of ices and dust. The dust comes from the formation of the Solar System. So the dust has the same composition as other remains of the solar system, i.e. asteroids.

The usual point about how deluded the insanity that comets are rocks blasted from planets in recent times is:
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 6 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly cited by Haig.
237 days and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
Click to expand...

Contradiction, it's a big word Reality Check, look it up. :D

Have another go 'ya mug!
 
Sol88 said:
Contradiction, it's a big word Reality Check, look it up. :D
Click to expand...
Lie is a very small word, Sol88, look it up :jaw-dropp!
For example: it is a lie that the word contradiction is in this post:
Reality Check said:
That is wrong, Sol88, the repeat of lies, ignorance and delusions over the last 6 years means that you are a permanently in my bad book :jaw-dropp!

The point is that you are still lying :eye-poppi.
Your "clays, olivine, forsterite, carbonates, silicates, etc." are expected in comets. Comets are made of ices and dust. The dust comes from the formation of the Solar System. So the dust has the same composition as other remains of the solar system, i.e. asteroids.

The usual point about how deluded the insanity that comets are rocks blasted from planets in recent times is:
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 6 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly cited by Haig.
237 days and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
Click to expand...

Another example: It is a lie that the composition of comet dust is that of rocky planets such as the Earth (no granite , limestone, etc.).

Another example: It is a lie that comet dust cannot contain "clays, olivine, forsterite, carbonates and silicates" because these are minerals formed in the early solar system, e.g. as found in asteroids and observed in other stellar systems.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
No joy then JD116?


Do you, Jonesdavid116, know how type 3's are produced, sustained, accelerated and collimated?
Click to expand...

Well, given that I've yet to set foot on a comet, then I can't say 100%. However, there is evidence and theory to cover both Type 2 and Type 3 jets.
Obviously, it's mostly to do with the geology, but also can be influenced by which volatiles are actually sublimating.
This covers the Type 2 jets:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.03193

And this has been proposed for the short-lived event on 29 July:
http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2016/pdf/1901.pdf

However, there are probably a number of other equally valid mechanisms which could give rise to collimated jets, which also fit with the known conditions and make up of comets.

I'm not sure what process you are going to invoke, but remember that the properties of these jets are pretty well known (particularly Type 2). Any explanation will need to take into account their known temperatures and velocities. Remember, a hot gas will expand at a greater velocity than a cold one. And we know for certain that these jets aren't hot. The rather active jets at Hartley 2 entrained water ice grains. That puts a bit of a constraint on their temperature.
As far as acceleratiion goes, the jets don't accelerate close to the nucleus, but will do later as photodissociation heats the gas faster than it can cool by adiabatic expansion.
Production just requires ices to be present. They are.
Sustaining them just needs ice to replenish that which has already sublimated, and temperatures sufficient to make it sublimate. No problem there, either.
 
Last edited:
Thank you JD116, your explanation will be a good basis to continue the discussion on "Jets"

Listening to Holger Sierks on the AGU on-demand presentation and it was very interesting on the "perihelion jet" that issued from the Anuket region.

Would be great if we could get a transcript. The surface changes were amazing!

are you able to tell us all what the official version on the mean velocity of "jets"?

I'd read somewhere they were between 0.5 km/s and 0.7 km/s, I'm I in the ball park?
 
Sol88 said:
Thank you JD116, your explanation will be a good basis to continue the discussion on "Jets"

Listening to Holger Sierks on the AGU on-demand presentation and it was very interesting on the "perihelion jet" that issued from the Anuket region.

Would be great if we could get a transcript. The surface changes were amazing!

are you able to tell us all what the official version on the mean velocity of "jets"?

I'd read somewhere they were between 0.5 km/s and 0.7 km/s, I'm I in the ball park?
Click to expand...

That's the general sort of velocity for H2O at the temperatures expected. Other molecules will be different based on their molecular weight. CO2 will be slower due to having a higher molecular weight. The 29 July outburst almost certainly wasn't driven by H2O.
I've been trying to find a reasonably simple formula for how they calculate the expansion velocity close to the nucleus, but I'm damned if I can find one.
So if someone is reading this who knows, please do tell!
Looking at ideal gas equations shows, as one would expect, that temperature and molecular weight are the factors that need to be taken into account. Quite how it's applied to comets though is still defeating me.
 
jonesdave116 said:
That's the general sort of velocity for H2O at the temperatures expected. Other molecules will be different based on their molecular weight. CO2 will be slower due to having a higher molecular weight. The 29 July outburst almost certainly wasn't driven by H2O.
I've been trying to find a reasonably simple formula for how they calculate the expansion velocity close to the nucleus, but I'm damned if I can find one.
So if someone is reading this who knows, please do tell!
Looking at ideal gas equations shows, as one would expect, that temperature and molecular weight are the factors that need to be taken into account. Quite how it's applied to comets though is still defeating me.
Click to expand...

Would this paper help JD116?

New estimates for the sublimation rate for ice on the Moon

Abstract
The strong hydrogen signal that the Lunar Prospector saw at the Moon’s poles suggests that water ice may be present near the surface of the
lunar regolith. A robotic mission to obtain in situ samples and to quantify the amount of this valuable resource must be designed carefully to avoid
dissipating too much heat in the regolith during coring or drilling and, thus, causing the ice to sublimate before it is processed. Here I use new
results for the saturation vapor pressure of water ice to extend previous estimates of its sublimation rate down to a temperature of 40 K, typical of
the permanently shaded craters near the lunar poles where the water ice is presumed to be trapped. I find that, for temperatures below 70 K, the
sublimation rate of an exposed ice surface is much less than one molecule of water vapor lost per square centimeter of surface per hour. But even
if a small ice sample (∼4 ng) were heated to 150 K, it could exist for over two hours without sublimating a significant fraction of its mass. Hence,
carefully designed sampling and sample handling should be able to preserve water ice obtained near the lunar poles for an accurate measurement
of its in situ concentration.
Click to expand...

So a highly porous, hard, generally homogeneous mix of dust and "ice/s", covered in places by dust layer, fractured, cratered and layered consolidated material, binary contact nucleus produces an "explosive" "jet" via subsurface sublimation requiring only thermal energy...right I think I understand now. :blush:

The 29 July outburst almost certainly wasn't driven by H2O
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Could we also agree on the subsurface "ice/s" being contaminated? or do you think they are pristine?

Contaminants in the ice sample decrease this sublimation rate.
Click to expand...

On combining these new estimates of sublimation loss and
curvature effects, I predict that a spherical lunar ice deposit of
initial radius 1 μm would lose 10% of its initial mass in only
32 s if it were heated to 170 K. A 100-μm-radius deposit, how-
ever, would require about an hour to lose 10% of its mass by
sublimation if it were heated to 170 K. Larger samples suffer
even smaller rates of fractional mass loss. Retaining lunar ice
samples near their original temperature of 40 K, on the other
hand, would preserve the ice against sublimation for many millennia
Click to expand...

So a surface temp of around 200 K odd on 67P, and one would assume it's colder below the dust, drives the sublimation from contaminated mixture of "ice/s", resulting in a velocity of 0.5 to 0.7 kms...right got it!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Could we also agree on the subsurface "ice/s" being contaminated? or do you think they are pristine?

So a surface temp of around 200 K odd on 67P, and one would assume it's colder below the dust, drives the sublimation from contaminated mixture of "ice/s", resulting in a velocity of 0.5 to 0.7 kms...right got it!
Click to expand...

Based purely on the Hartley 2 and Tempel 1 observations, and how long those ice grains survived, then the view is that they had to be pure ice. 'Dirty' ice wouldn't have survived long enough in the coma. I would assume that the majority of ice below the surface is therefore pure. This would limit the depth to which sufficient temperatures could penetrate to cause it to sublimate, to probably a few mm at 200K. While the comet was at those sort of temperatures, we basically only saw H2O sublimation from the neck region, suggesting that the ice there is on, or very close to, the surface. Borne out by the bluer spectrum.
Obviously, by perihelion, the temperature is much higher (~350K?), so will penetrate further. And, of course, the sublimation temperatures of CO & CO2 are considerably lower than H2O.
The paper "Exposed Water Ice on the Nucleus of Comet 67P/ Churyumov–Gerasimenko" (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7586/abs/nature16190.html), suggests that the larger grains of ice are pure. However, I find it a bit ambiguous as to whether they are suggesting the smaller 'intimately' mixed grains are pure or not. Intimately meaning 'in amongst', or 'mixed with'?

I couldn't see an equation for the gas expansion velocity in the paper you linked, but have only skimmed through it for now.
However, I'm sure that whatever equation they are using is similar in form to one I found for ideal gas laws (I think), which I didn't save. I did write down the equation for the mean speed though:
Vms = 158 * sqrt (temp (K)/mol wt (g)), where Vms = velocity mean speed and mol wt = molecular weight of 1 mole of the molecule in question (i.e. H2O is ~18g).
Plugging in 300K for H2O gives ~650 m/s. At 1000K = ~1200 m/s, and 5000K = ~2500 m/s.
 
Just to show what an interesting and varied life I lead, I spent a boring night doing some calculations on the water production rates at comets per unit area. I've heard quite a few arguments from incredulity about the amount of H2O outgassing from sublimation.

These are pretty rough, but well within an order of magnitude, I'd have thought.

We know the volume of 67P, it is roughly 19km^3. So messing about, and normalising this to a sphere with a flat surface, we can get a surface area of ~35km^2.
Convert to m^2, and take the maximum outgassing rate of 1 x 28 mol s^-1 (300 l/s), we can then get a figure for how much water is being outgassed per m^2, assuming (wrongly) that 100% of the surface is outgassing. This = 1 x 10^5 l/s per m^2 (1/100th of a ml).
If we want to say that only 1% of the surface is active, then this becomes 1ml/s/m^2.
A single shot of spirits is about 25ml.
Using the best guess for the size of Hale-Bopp, then these figures become 1ml/s/m^2 for 100% active, and 100ml/s/m^2 for a 1% active surface. So a double double per m^2 per second.
Doesn't seem quite so much when you put it like that.
 
Personally, I think Sol might be starting to get it. In which case we should probably lay off a little bit. I might be wrong, but it is always best to think that blah blah blah........
you know what I mean.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Just to show what an interesting and varied life I lead, I spent a boring night doing some calculations on the water production rates at comets per unit area. I've heard quite a few arguments from incredulity about the amount of H2O outgassing from sublimation.

These are pretty rough, but well within an order of magnitude, I'd have thought.

We know the volume of 67P, it is roughly 19km^3. So messing about, and normalising this to a sphere with a flat surface, we can get a surface area of ~35km^2.
Convert to m^2, and take the maximum outgassing rate of 1 x 28 mol s^-1 (300 l/s), we can then get a figure for how much water is being outgassed per m^2, assuming (wrongly) that 100% of the surface is outgassing. This = 1 x 10^5 l/s per m^2 (1/100th of a ml).
If we want to say that only 1% of the surface is active, then this becomes 1ml/s/m^2.
A single shot of spirits is about 25ml.
Using the best guess for the size of Hale-Bopp, then these figures become 1ml/s/m^2 for 100% active, and 100ml/s/m^2 for a 1% active surface. So a double double per m^2 per second.
Doesn't seem quite so much when you put it like that.
Click to expand...

Ok JD116, I'll humour you and agree with your maths assumptions on the sublimation of surface ice on a comet :thumbsup:

but

Why do you think they are highly collimated? The type 3 "jets" in question I mean.
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
Just to show what an interesting and varied life I lead, I spent a boring night doing some calculations on the water production rates at comets per unit area. I've heard quite a few arguments from incredulity about the amount of H2O outgassing from sublimation.

These are pretty rough, but well within an order of magnitude, I'd have thought.

We know the volume of 67P, it is roughly 19km^3. So messing about, and normalising this to a sphere with a flat surface, we can get a surface area of ~35km^2.
Convert to m^2, and take the maximum outgassing rate of 1 x 28 mol s^-1 (300 l/s), we can then get a figure for how much water is being outgassed per m^2, assuming (wrongly) that 100% of the surface is outgassing. This = 1 x 10^5 l/s per m^2 (1/100th of a ml).
If we want to say that only 1% of the surface is active, then this becomes 1ml/s/m^2.
A single shot of spirits is about 25ml.
Using the best guess for the size of Hale-Bopp, then these figures become 1ml/s/m^2 for 100% active, and 100ml/s/m^2 for a 1% active surface. So a double double per m^2 per second.
Doesn't seem quite so much when you put it like that.
Click to expand...

And how do they get 0.5 - 0.7 kms? Vapour pressure does not seems to be enough?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom