Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh dear, I see what Sol has done, now. DECIMETRE = ~10cm! Good luck getting electrostatic forces to do anything with that!!!!
And you keep quoting that electrostatic paper. It only applies a) at large heliocentric distances, and b) to teeny tiny dust grains. Not dirty great lumps of stuff at 2.0 AU!
 
jonesdave116 said:
Given that sublimation has been seen to occur, and electrical arc discharges haven't, that is a rather silly thing to say.
Click to expand...

May I read that peer reviewed paper too please JD116?

A link will do. In fact any paper on the sublimation of dirty ice in a vacuum would do.

Cheers
 
jonesdave116 said:
Oh dear, I see what Sol has done, now. DECIMETRE = ~10cm! Good luck getting electrostatic forces to do anything with that!!!!
And you keep quoting that electrostatic paper. It only applies a) at large heliocentric distances, and b) to teeny tiny dust grains. Not dirty great lumps of stuff at 2.0 AU!
Click to expand...


:mrocks

There there, it's hard to understand but that's ok JD116 not everyone gets it first time :boggled:
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
:mrocks

There there, it's hard to understand but that's ok JD116 not everyone gets it first time :boggled:
Click to expand...

Huh? The electrostatic forces hypothesized by Nordheim, Mendis and others, apply to submicron (< ~10-6m) sized grains at large heliocentric distances. You are trying to apply it to aggregates that are ~ 100 000 times the diameter of that! That is 1 quadrillion times the volume, and mass!

tl;dr? Electrostatic charging is going to do nothing to a football sized piece of comet at 2.0 AU! Or any other distance, for that matter.
 
Sol88 said:
May I read that peer reviewed paper too please JD116?

A link will do. In fact any paper on the sublimation of dirty ice in a vacuum would do.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Sublimation of water ice mixed with silicates and tholins: Evolution of surface texture and reflectance spectra, with implications for comets
Poch, O. et al (2016)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103515005709 (paywalled)

Sublimation of ice–tholins mixtures: A morphological and spectro-photometric study
Poch, O. et al (2016)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103515005163 (paywalled)

An Experimental Study of the Sublimation of Water Ice and the Release of Trapped Gases
Hudson, R. L. et al (1991)
http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/691/cosmicice/reprints/IcGas1.pdf

Thermal properties of cometary ices and sublimation residua including organics
Kömle, N. I. et al (1996)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.ed...e=Thermal_properties_of_cometary_ices_and.pdf

Laboratory Simulation of Cometary Processes: Results From First Kosi Experiments
Grün, E. et al (1991)
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...xperiments/links/5679269d08ae6041cb49ec57.pdf

Searching on Google Scholar with certain key words would be a start.
 
Sol88 said:
Still, it's all YOU'VE got! :eek:

Is there a new hypothesis for the formation of the solar system, Tusenfem/JD116?
Click to expand...

You are deploying the creationist mode of argument. They get as far as Darwin and promptly ignore the ensuing 150 years of research as though it had never happened. You have simply gone for 250 years you choose to ignore.
 
And then, of course, we have numerous in situ observations, such as those below. Unless, that is, you have another explanation for what happened to the ice when it reached its sublimation temperature? Maybe it ran off and hid somewhere. My guess is that it disappeared because it had no choice other than to sublimate. In the same way that you can take a tray of ice out of your freezer and leave it at room temperature. No amount of praying, or wishful thinking, will stop it from melting.

The diurnal cycle of water ice on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
De Sanctis, M. C. et al (2015)
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...erasimenko/links/568fa2b808aef987e56af009.pdf

Seasonal exposure of carbon dioxide ice on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Filacchione, G. et al (2016)
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/11/16/science.aag3161
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Still, it's all YOU'VE got! :eek:

Is there a new hypothesis for the formation of the solar system, Tusenfem/JD116?
Click to expand...

I have nothing, get yourself to a university library or to ADS, I am not going to do your work for you.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Sublimation of water ice mixed with silicates and tholins: Evolution of surface texture and reflectance spectra, with implications for comets
Poch, O. et al (2016)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103515005709 (paywalled)

Sublimation of ice–tholins mixtures: A morphological and spectro-photometric study
Poch, O. et al (2016)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103515005163 (paywalled)

An Experimental Study of the Sublimation of Water Ice and the Release of Trapped Gases
Hudson, R. L. et al (1991)
http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/691/cosmicice/reprints/IcGas1.pdf

Thermal properties of cometary ices and sublimation residua including organics
Kömle, N. I. et al (1996)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.ed...e=Thermal_properties_of_cometary_ices_and.pdf

Laboratory Simulation of Cometary Processes: Results From First Kosi Experiments
Grün, E. et al (1991)
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...xperiments/links/5679269d08ae6041cb49ec57.pdf

Searching on Google Scholar with certain key words would be a start.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links, will read after tonite's roast dinner!
 
An Experimental Study of the Sublimation of Water Ice and the Release of Trapped Gases

Astrophysical Implications

The primary astrophysical implication of our work on ices is for models of comet sublimation. All models that assume gases are released from a comet's nucleus contin- uously, starting at each gas's sublimation temperature, are incorrect. First, models must allow for the fact that the sublimation of cometary gases, such as CO, will carry away water at temperatures far below that for H2O subli- mation. Second, models must include the dependence of the quantity of gas released at any temperature on the gas concentration in the frozen nucleus. Third, the release of many different cometary gases in the same temperature region must be recognized.
Click to expand...

Whoops...good start
 
Sol88 said:
An Experimental Study of the Sublimation of Water Ice and the Release of Trapped Gases



Whoops...good start
Click to expand...

Err, why? Did you assume it was as simple as you thought? There are numerous mechanisms which see gas released at various temperatures. The transition from amorphous to crystalline ice, for instance, may do it.
Believe it or not, it isn't as simple as the scientifically challenged ideas of EU, such as 'it looks like ______, therefore it must be _______, despite the evidence telling us otherwise.'
As another poster has said here before (or maybe elsewhere), I'm not sure what EU are doing, but it sure as hell has nothing to do with science.

Crystallization of amorphous ice as the cause of Comet P/Halley's outburst at 14 AU
Prialnik, D., & Bar-Nun, A. (1992)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1992A&A...258L...9P
 
"It is obvious that future experiments will have to concentrate on icy agglomerates and determine their tensile strengths. Since the KOSI experiments (see, e.g., Grün et al., 1991 , for details), performed about 25 years ago, no experimental study has dealt with the physics of the release of dust particles from evaporating ices. Thus, the conditions and detailed physical processes of dust emission are still not fully understood. "
Click to expand...
LINK



Such loosely bound crust is also not really supported by MUPUS (Multipurpose Sensors for Surface and Sub-Surface Science) measurements of the thermal inertia and the strength of several MPa since the instrument was not able to penetrate the surface material below a few centimetres (Spohn et al. 2015). A thin layer of dust may be present but it is speculative according to Spohn et al. (2015) and not visible at CIVA resolution.
Click to expand...
LINK

Just say'n
 
Last edited:
But the ice particles of the tholins minerals-inter-mixture-1 sample have lost their initial fluidity: they appear to be strongly consolidated. This consolidation probably comes from the re-condensation of the water between the ice particles or sintering, building bonds that connect the ice particles together and provide solidification of the whole sample. We plan to quantify the compressive strengths of these ice samples with a dedicated device in future experiments.
Click to expand...

Sublimation of water ice mixed with silicates and tholins: Evolution of surface texture and reflectance spectra, with implications for comets.
Poch, O. et al (2016)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103515005709

Ice–tholins samples placed under simulated comet surface conditions acquire a vertical stratification with an uppermost porous mantle of refractory tholins overlaying a layer of hard ice formed by re-condensation/sintering under the mantle.
Click to expand...

Sublimation of ice–tholins mixtures: A morphological and spectro-photometric study
Poch, O. et al (2016)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103515005163

Just quotin' experimental science, is all.

Anyway, I don't see the point of your argument. It has been shown beyond any doubt that there is no rock within the reach of the instruments. In the case of MIRO, that extends to below the level that MUPUS reached. In the case of CONSERT, it went right through the body of the comet. Plus Deep Impact. Plus the density. Rock is a no-goer. Hasn't been since Tempel 1.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Anyway, I don't see the point of your argument.
Click to expand...

Sol88 has no argument, he is just quote mining a few sentences as in post #2933, and then comments "just sayin' " but he is NOT saying ANYTHING. He leaves it up to others to decide what he is claiming.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Wrong. How many times do we need to keep quoting the same things before you get it through your head that the evidence says you are wrong? It was only one page back, where I quoted the part of the paper that shows that it isn't rock:
Click to expand...

Considering that Sol88 has consistently denied that ice is hard when it gets cold (since they first came to the JREF), this is not a surprise, they deny anything outside of their echo chamber. Sol88 has failed repeatedly to provide any evidence of 'electric' comets.
They just spam us with nonsense.
 
Dancing David said:
Considering that Sol88 has consistently denied that ice is hard when it gets cold (since they first came to the JREF), this is not a surprise, they deny anything outside of their echo chamber. Sol88 has failed repeatedly to provide any evidence of 'electric' comets.
They just spam us with nonsense.
Click to expand...

To be fair to both Sol, and the idiot Thornhill, they are both Australian. Chances of them actually encountering ice/ snow are pretty minimal.
What I don't understand is why the Tempel 1 mission failed to kill this nonsense off. Crater is way too big to be an impact into rock, and a shed load of solid ice was ejected. Game over. 04/07/2005. Why is this rubbish still being discussed? It died right then. Yet, here we are, 11 years on, still talking about the same evidence-free (and science-free) nonsense.
 
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