Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Cannot comprehend the contents of a comet paper

Just to clear this up me 'ol mate, ...

No, Sol88 - I am saying that you are obviously so ignorant about the contents of the paper that you make irrational demands for citations that are in it or
13 October 2015 Sol88: Cannot comprehend the contents of a comet paper, e.g. its citations !

So me 'ol mate - you cannot comprehend English .

 

[Reality Check]

So YOU CANT!

That is a lie, Sol88, because I pointed out the paper you are ignoring has the citations to electrostatic dust blow-off papers dating from 1986.
13 October 2015 Sol88: Cannot comprehend the contents of a comet paper, e.g. its citations !

Now you add the irrational demand that other papers on dust being accelerated off the nucleus surface by charging be produced when the paper cites them :!. Thus making it obvious that you have not bothered to read the paper and are writing from a stance of ignorance. Not a surprise!

Given 107 days and counting of fear of 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.
it is not startling that you cannot (or will not) read a scientific paper and find the relevant citations in it.

If any lurkers think that I am kidding about this: Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity,

It has also been suggested that surface charging of the nucleus may lead to electrostatic levitation of small dust particles (Flammer et al., 1986, Juhász and Szegő, 1998 and Mendis et al., 1981) and that electrostatic dust blow-off may explain sudden changes in the observed brightness of comet Halley at large heliocentric distances (Flammer et al., 1986). As suggested in the recent review given by Mendis and Horányi (2013), the nucleus of comet 67P may exhibit surface charging and dust levitation during the initial part of the Rosetta escort phase when the comet is expected to be only weakly outgassing.

ETA: That quote looks familiar and is !
29th September 2015

The electric comet supporters obsess with surface charging on comets as if it were something new but this has been thought about for 30 years or more!

Objects exposed to inflowing plasma and solar UV photons experience charging currents due to electron and ion bombardment, photoemission, and secondary electron emission (Whipple, 1981). ... It has been predicted that surface charging may also occur on cometary nuclei during periods of low outgassing activity, when solar wind plasma and solar UV photons are allowed direct access to the nucleus (Mendis et al., 1981). It has also been suggested that surface charging of the nucleus may lead to electrostatic levitation of small dust particles (Flammer et al., 1986, Juhász and Szegő, 1998 and Mendis et al., 1981) and that electrostatic dust blow-off may explain sudden changes in the observed brightness of comet Halley at large heliocentric distances (Flammer et al., 1986).

 

[Sol88]

My friends Tom, Geraint and Andrew, and two others wrote a great paper about modeling Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity.

Any thing extra from the above paper not already covered in this paper?

DUSTY PLASMA EFFECTS IN COMETS:
EXPECTATIONS FOR ROSETTA

 

[Reality Check]

Any thing extra from the above paper not already covered in this paper?

Read the papers, Sol88.

ETA: Really obvious extra - the 2015 paper is modelling 67P using 2015 knowledge !
On the other hand 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. shows that you cannot understand simple physics so why should we expect anything but more ignorance or delusions about the papers from you?

ETA2: You may have missed a point about Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity, Sol88, given the evidence that you may have only read it today.
This paper is not about the observation of electrostatic dust acceleration at 67P. The paper is about the modelling of possible electrostatic dust acceleration at 67P.

 

[Reality Check]

DUSTY PLASMA EFFECTS IN COMETS: EXPECTATIONS FOR ROSETTA is good science. A bit too much of an overview for me - a lot of details are in referenced papers. But this is interesting:

[18] These observations lead to the inferences of a non-uniform inactive crust overlying a volatile mix of subsurface ices (presumably, mainly H 2O) and non-volatile dust. The thickness, porosity, and friability of this outer crust could be highly variable, and it may also have fissures. In such a case, the outgassing would preferentially be from the regions of low crustal thickness, high porosity, or fissuring. Such regions of structural weakness may also be the regions from which dust could be more easily entrained by the outflowing gases. General support for a fragile dust layer, overlying an H 2O-ice dominated interior, was provided by the Deep Impact mission, which launched the projectile from the spacecraft onto the surface of comet Tempel 1 on 4 July 2005 [A'Hearn et al.,2005]. Much more detailed data on the structure and composition of the cometary surface is expected from the Rosetta mission, which includes the Philae Lander.

So the dust layer on 67P was not unexpected.

Got to section [39] and there is "Figure 3. Schematic drawing of the basic model to estimate the electrostatic potential acquired by the night side of an unshielded cometary nucleus".
Sol88 is going to be really disappointed - the dust levitation is on the night side for a quiet comet, i.e. nothing to do with the day side or jets on an active comet. Or the delusion if electrical discharges on comets.

 

[Sol88]

And of course, lest we forget, the Deep Impact mission. What came out of a comet, Sol, when they smashed an impactor into it? H2O. Unambiguous. Water. Vapour at 2.7 microns in terms of emission, and around 3.0 microns from absorption from the ejected ice. Unquestionably. Where did it come from? What has the unqualified burke at Thunderdolts got to say about this?
Irrelevant. He's not qualified. And stands to lose too much from eejits like yourself, buying books and DVDs and conference tickets.
IT IS A NON-HYPOTHESIS. Give it up.

Please Joesdavis116, tell us about the

Measurements from the Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite (SWAS) recorded only about 550 pounds of water per second from the comet surface. This emission was similar to what was seen by SWAS before the collision.

"It's pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher," said Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "The more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven't materialized, at least not yet."

? LINK

 

[Reality Check]

Please Joesdavis116, tell us about the ? LINK

Please Sol88, tell us about your inability to understand what you read in science reports yet again? Of course I will fruitlessly do this for you!

• There is the Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite (SWAS).
• It watched Comet Tempel 1 during the Deep Impact mission and the impact.
• After the impact SWAS measured about 550 pounds of water per second being emitted from the surface of the comet.
• Before the impact SWAS measured about the same amount of water per second being emitted from the surface of the comet.
• Thus the impact did not cause the surface of the comet to measurably increase water production.

The Thunderbolts idiots might claim that this is no water in the ejecta but that is another observation from Swift: Impactor ejects mighty water mass .

 

[Sol88]

Please Sol88, tell us about your inability to understand what you read in science reports yet again? Of course I will fruitlessly do this for you!

• There is the Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite (SWAS).
• It watched Comet Tempel 1 during the Deep Impact mission and the impact.
• After the impact SWAS measured about 550 pounds of water per second being emitted from the surface of the comet.
• Before the impact SWAS measured about the same amount of water per second being emitted from the surface of the comet.
• Thus the impact did not cause the surface of the comet to measurably increase water production.

The Thunderbolts idiots might claim that this is no water in the ejecta but that is another observation from Swift: Impactor ejects mighty water mass .

And then continued to increase for days afterwards not released in the impact event'

Lifted grains

The question is why the comet continued to eject material for so long after the initial impact.

See DUSTY PLASMA EFFECTS IN COMETS:
EXPECTATIONS FOR ROSETTA

but if want to keep with the sublimating ice's then say G'day to the Easter bunny whle your there for me sport, cheers.

 

[Reality Check]

And then continued to increase for days afterwards not released in the impact event

No: The Thunderbolts idiots might claim that this is no water in the ejecta but that is another observation from Swift: Impactor ejects mighty water mass.
Rational people read the science, Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite observations of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 and Deep Impact, where even SWAS detected the water from the impact.

 

[Sol88]

Where else would it go, but into interplanetary space? But because of the motion of the comet, it will travel along with it.



Most of the dust escapes during the outbursts that we see on the comet. However, in Tom's paper that is not looked at. I guess you could actually read the paper and get that number for yourself.



Well I guess dusty plasma effects: the dust acoustic and the dust ion acoustic waves can be generated, and all kinds of other stuff. Here is a short list of papers on dusty plasmas. Actually, I hope to get a postdoc to look into dusty plasmas at 67P/CG.



What does that even mean? a "coupler"?
Did you read the paper by Tom Cravens? He explains it very well, the outgassing produces and outward pressure, the solar wind an inward pressure (as seen from the comet). If the outward pressure is large enough, then the solar wind is pushed away from the nucleus, including the frozen in (yes it is frozen in) magnetic field, and thereby creating a magnetic field free region around the comet. Naturally there will be a boundary layer and I think that Charlotte Götz will definitely investigate the boundary in her upcoming paper. In the cavity there will be only cometary ions and dust, because the solar wind is pushed away. I have no idea what you want to "couple" here with the dust between cavity and "plasma sphere". As far as I know, the plasma instruments do not see any solar wind particles in the cavity.

So the dust in the tail is charged? The same dust that was charged on the surface?

How far down the tail before the dust becomes neutral again?

 

[tusenfem]

Any thing extra from the above paper not already covered in this paper?

DUSTY PLASMA EFFECTS IN COMETS:
EXPECTATIONS FOR ROSETTA

Probably, why don't you make a comparison of the two?

 

[tusenfem]

So the dust in the tail is charged? The same dust that was charged on the surface?

How far down the tail before the dust becomes neutral again?

I notice that you never answer any questions!!!

As we are never in the tail, we cannot say if the dust is charged in the tail ...
There will be a tail excursion, though, next year.
But dust embedded in a plasma is inherently charged, because of the "stickyness" for electrons. Why not read the paper by Burch et al. [2015] Observation of charged nanograins at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. (open access)

Note that the dust can be positively charged on the surface of the comet, and then by leaving the comet proper, enter into a plasma region and then convert from positive to negative.

HOWEVER, TOM'S PAPER ONLY HOLDS FOR LOW ACTIVITY, THAT IS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ESCORT PHASE, NOT FOR HIGH ACTIVITY AS WITH THE JETS THAT YOU ARE SHOWING IMAGES OF. YOU HAVE TO READ THE FULL TITLE OF THE PAPER.

There is no necessity for the dust to become neutral. They can loose their excess of electrons through photo-ionization. You will have to do the calculation of the currents to and from the dust particle to figure out if and when it gets zero again.

 

[jonesdave116]

How much ICE on Giacobini–Zinner, Halley, Grigg–Skjellerup, Borrelly, Wild 2, Tempel 1, Hartley 2 and Churyumov–Gerasimenko?

On 67/P they did not find ICE they found BLUE and Bright patches! and ASSUMED them to be ice..... :yawn:


PS Not enough ICE has been found on or in ANY comet to support the observed production of OH radicals thru the two-step process (which is electrical in nature anyway but....)

Wrong. As I get sick to death of posting the link, you can look it up for yourself. They saw H2O ICE at Tempel 1 in the EJECTA, due to its absorption in the IR spectra. And at Hartley 2. That is SOLID grains of ICE. End of story. It is, in the words of the lead author of that paper, "unambiguous."
I'll ask again; how in hell would ice remain on the sunlit part of a comet for any length of time?
Water vapour has been unambiguously observed in the comae of very many comets, going back 3 decades to its detection at Halley. Too many to list. These are scientists, not some unqualified pseudoscientific burke from Thunderdolts. It is unambiguous. Instead of looking at pictures of lightning, try educating yourself and spend a few days looking on google for articles on the ro-vibrational states of H2O.
MIRO has already seen H2O vapour close to the surface of 67P at ~557 GHz in microwave. That is H2O, unambiguously. Philae detected it within a metre of the surface.
It is NOT OH! There is no chance of confusing the spectral lines of OH and H2O. Understand?

 

[Dancing David]

DONE DUDE

Except you didn't

 

[Dancing David]

Thunderstorms on a comet DD? That's a new one for me? but I spose fits in nicley with sublimating subsurface ice story!

How exactly do you go from a blue jet in the ionosphere to saying that is the same as an alleged event on a comet?
Please show the steps in your analogy, it was you analogy to say that the ionospheric blue jet was comparable to the picture of a comet

 

[Reality Check]

On 67/P they did not find ICE they found BLUE and Bright patches! and ASSUMED them to be ice.....

That would be a lie based on ignorance, Sol88.
On 67/P they found ICE. They did this using science. They did this by looking at how the surface emitted light in images. They found that the BLUE and BRIGHT patches were consistent with ice. That is how science works.

Followed by a lie about a blog entry: Ultraviolet study reveals surprises in comet coma does not say that there is not enough ICE on ANY comets to produce the observed OH radicals.
That is your personal delusion, Sol88.

 

[Reality Check]

Thunderstorms on a comet DD?

Sol88, Nothing to do with Dancing David.
You wrote a post about comet jets with triple stupidity in 2 uncited images

1. A comet with its tail
2. Activity inside the Earth's atmosphere as if you did not know where comets reside !
3. That atmospheric cartoon has what looks like a comet with a tail (not jets). I think it is actually a meteor !

 

[Matthew Cline]

I notice that you never answer any questions!!!

Well, of course not. All he has to do is point out the gaps in knowledge of mainstream cometary science in order to demonstrate that it's wrong. </sarcasm>

 

[Sol88]

Wrong. As I get sick to death of posting the link, you can look it up for yourself. They saw H2O ICE at Tempel 1 in the EJECTA, due to its absorption in the IR spectra. And at Hartley 2. That is SOLID grains of ICE. End of story. It is, in the words of the lead author of that paper, "unambiguous."
I'll ask again; how in hell would ice remain on the sunlit part of a comet for any length of time?
Water vapour has been unambiguously observed in the comae of very many comets, going back 3 decades to its detection at Halley. Too many to list. These are scientists, not some unqualified pseudoscientific burke from Thunderdolts. It is unambiguous. Instead of looking at pictures of lightning, try educating yourself and spend a few days looking on google for articles on the ro-vibrational states of H2O.
MIRO has already seen H2O vapour close to the surface of 67P at ~557 GHz in microwave. That is H2O, unambiguously. Philae detected it within a metre of the surface.
It is NOT OH! There is no chance of confusing the spectral lines of OH and H2O. Understand?

Yeah but none found yet with COSIMA Aat 67P

The fact that they broke apart so easily means that the individual parts were not well bound together. Moreover, if they had contained ice, they would not have shattered. Instead, the icy component would have evaporated off the grain shortly after touching the collecting plate, leaving voids in what remained. By comparison, if a pure water-ice grain had struck the detector, then only a dark patch would have been seen.

snip

“We found that the dust particles released first when the comet started to become active again are ‘fluffy’. They don’t contain ice, but they do contain a lot of sodium. We have found the parent material of interplanetary dust particles,” says lead author Rita Schulz of ESA’s Scientific Support Office.

and follow that gem up with Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity

So why is sublimation needed again????

 

[Sol88]

Well, of course not. All he has to do is point out the gaps in knowledge of mainstream cometary science in order to demonstrate that it's wrong. </sarcasm>

Gaps?

No gaps, just a wrong theory!