Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

Status
Not open for further replies.
11 September 2017 Sol88: Ignorant fantasy that silicatic or icy grains in a comets are ices and dust paper supports his comet delusions.

A lie by citing the ices + dust paper with quote mining (pointed out by tusenfem).
The paper is about Comet 67P outbursts.
Comet 67P outbursts and quiescent coma at 1.3 AU from the Sun: dust properties from Rosetta/VIRTIS-H observations
The observation is

The albedos are from bright grains that can be silicatic or icy or both.

In addition, the measured large bolometric albedos (∼0.7) indicate bright grains in the ejecta, which could either be silicatic grains, implying the thermal degradation of the carbonaceous material, or icy grains. The 3 μm absorption band from water ice is not detected in the spectra acquired during the outbursts, whereas signatures of organic compounds near 3.4 μm are observed in emission. The H2O 2.7 μm and CO2 4.3 μm vibrational bands do not show any enhancement during the outbursts.
Comet 67P outbursts and quiescent coma at 1.3 AU from the Sun: dust properties from Rosetta/VIRTIS-H observations

So what's do YOU think is going on here Reality Check?

Because your wrong, again, here silicatic or icy or both

Can't be both and would have great difficulty silicatic or icy, if the icy part had no absorption band from water ice or indeed CO2.
 
Last edited:
Should be pretty obvious now that the (dust) is be ejected electrically!

So ANY paper that chooses to IGNORE the fact the dust is charged and coupled to the plasma that surrounds the nucleus, only has value in case the date roll runs out!


And even when it is included the assumptions are so simplified that there're pretty well worthless (1D, 1r etc) just like JD116 back of the napkin calculation.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A lie of dust being ejected electrically as in his comet delusions

Should be pretty obvious now that the (dust) is be ejected electrically!
13 September 2017 Sol88: A lie of dust being ejected electrically as in his comet delusions.
Nothing he has cited states that the dust is ejected by delusions of electrical discharges on comets.
Nothing he has cited states that the dust is ejected by delusions of the Sun having a physically significant electric field.
Nothing he has cited even states that the dust has been found to be ejected by anything electrical.
 
Last edited:
13 September 2017 Sol88: A lie of dust being ejected electrically as in his comet delusions.
Nothing he has cited states that the dust is ejected by delusions of electrical discharges on comets.
Nothing he has cited states that the dust is ejected by delusions of the Sun having a physically significant electric field.
Nothing he has cited even states that the dust has been found to be ejected by anything electrical.

Wheel this baby out again, ay!

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity


Highlights

•

We model surface charging of the 67P nucleus during periods of low activity.
•

We include a treatment of the cometary plasma wake using a self-similar approach.
•

Criteria for electrostatic levitation and ejection of submicron grains are presented.
•

Charged nanodust flux detectable by the RPC–IES instrument on-board Rosetta.

Abstract

We have investigated through simulation the electrostatic charging of the nucleus of Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko during periods of weak outgassing activity. Specifically, we have modeled the surface potential and electric field at the surface of the nucleus during the initial Rosetta rendezvous at 3.5 AU and the release of the Philae lander at 3 AU. We have also investigated the possibility of dust acceleration and ejection above the nucleus due to electrostatic forces. Finally, we discuss these modeling results in the context of possible observations by instruments on both the Rosetta orbiter and the Philae lander.


SIMULATION OF THE ELECTROSTATIC CHARGING OF PHILAE ON
67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO AND OF ITS INTERACTION WITH THE
DUSTS.

S. L. G. Hess1, P. Sarrailh1, J.-C. Mateo-Velez1, J. Forest2, B. Jeanty-Ruard2 and F. Cipriani3

Abstract. ROSETTA's probe Philae landed on a dust covered soil. This dust may be ejected from the
ground through many mechanisms (other than spacecraft landing) : micro-meteorite impacts, electrostatic
charging and soil outgassing. In any cases, the dust grains charge electrostatically in the ambient plasma
and this charge impacts the dust interaction with the spacecraft, which is itself dierentially charged due to
its partial exposure to the solar UV light. Using the DUST addition to the Spacecraft-Plasma Interaction
Software (SPIS) routinely used to compute the charge state of the spacecraft surfaces, we simulate the
electrostatic charging of Philae as well as its dust environment. SPIS-DUST allows one to compute the
electrostatic charging of the dust grains on the ground and in the plasma, and to model their ejection and
their recollection by the probe. We simulated one cometary day of the Philae environment at dierent
distances from the sun to observe the variation of the dust collection with Philae's local time.

:whistling

Why would those CRANKS say something so stupid Reality Check? [sarcasm] are they also a part of the the THUNDERBOLTS mob?[/sarcasm] just so RC doesent get all confused.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
13 September 2017 Sol88: Gibberish and lies (no evidence for his comet delusions, mainstream comet model works, "jets" lie, we know how jets work).

Care to back it up with a link? :whistling
 
Last edited:
It has been proposed that strong multipole electric fields may occur at sunlight-shadow boundaries due to high energy (~50 to 500 eV) photoelectrons emitted from sunlit areas subsequently striking adjacent shadowed regions (Criswell and De, 1977; De and Criswell, 1977). At centimeter-sized spatial scales, De and Criswell (1977) have shown that local electric fields in excess of 2ev/cm may be generated across adjacent sunlit and shadowed regions. Strong small-scale electric fields on the order of ~100 to 1000 V/cm could therefore exist in regions near the terminators and at local sunlit-shadow boundaries on planetary objects of low resistivity. In the case of a rotating body, Lee (1996) has shown that the terminator crossing time (and thus time available for charging) is a possible constraint for this process. However, for a relatively slowly rotating body like the 67P nucleus, with a rotational period of ~12 h, this does not preclude such levels of charging from occurring. Shadowing due to the topography of the 67P nucleus may therefore be associated with strong electric fields on the order of ~100–1000 V/cm over centimeter scales. Such locally enhanced electric fields may lead to increased rates of electrostatic dust ejection and possibly also to motion of charged grains across shadow boundaries due to strong local electric field gradients. While such illumination conditions are certainly present near the terminators, imaging of the 67P nucleus has revealed an object with rugged small-scale topography (Thomas et al., 2015). Thus, we may also expect to see similarly enhanced local small scale electric fields due to shadowing from boulders, escarpments and crater rims.

Here we assume that the acceleration due to gas drag on the nanograin particles is negligible compared to that of electrostatic forces, and thus the kinetic energy of the charged nanograins should reflect the surface potential at the region of the nucleus from which they are emitted (e.g. Szego et al., 2014).

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity

Mmmmmmmm.....Where do we see the "jets" mainly?

The dust being dragged out by gas drag is negligible??

Well according Yu. V. Skorov1, L. Rezac1, P. Hartogh1 and H. U. Keller2, it's a complete non starter!

Conclusions. In the framework of the presented model, which can be considered common in terms of assumptions and physical parameters in the cometary community, the dust removal by a gas drag force is not a plausible physical mechanism. The sublimation of not only water ice, but also of super-volatile ice (i.e., CO) is unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding to 1.3 AU. A way out of this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.
 
Evidence of Electrical Activity on Comet 67P: Towards an Electrochemical Framework for Cometary Phenomena

It is clear that the correlation of relative abundances between O2 and H2O indicates a single origin and release mechanism. The question is: which mechanism? I propose a mechanism that allows for the simultaneous formation of O2 and H2O, where the driving force is a voltage differential, such as an electrochemical method. There is plenty of evidence of the presence of filamentary electric fields accelerating electrons and ions in the vicinity of the nucleus, leading to charge separation, as has been demonstrated throughout these episodes. I called this mechanism:

O2 and H2O formation by electrochemical means – In this method, O2, O2-, OH, -OH, and other chemical species are released into the coma by various mechanisms, such as “electron-stripping,” solar wind sputtering, and solar heating. In this context, O2 can absorb a negative charged through charge exchange due to demonstrated high electron densities in the vicinity of the nucleus, followed up by protonation via the solar wind. Subsequently, water can then be formed via at least two pathways linking O2 and H2O formation:

(1) O2 + H → H2O
(2) O2- + H+ → H2O

In this theoretical framework whereby the driving force is a voltage differential in the vicinity of the nucleus, the instantaneous O2 formation reaction that was deemed unfeasible becomes feasible when looked at from an electrochemical perspective as the reaction can occur directly via gas phase collisions or be mediated via silicate catalysis on nanograin surfaces. In a general perspective, a voltage-driven chemical reaction mechanism looks promising as it can explain the formation of complex chemical species, such as water, alcohols, sugar, [14] cyanide polymeric chains, amino acids, and others, with satisfaction without the thermodynamic constraint of low temperatures-driven collisions.

Shadowing due to the topography of the 67P nucleus may therefore be associated with strong electric fields on the order of ~100–1000 V/cm over centimeter scales
Seems there may be enough grunt to do the "work" required.


Coincidental that jets are seen to occur in the boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas? or linked?
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A repeated lie of dust being ejected electrically as in his comet delusions

Idiocy and a lie in this post.
14 September 2017 Sol88: A repeated lie of dust being ejected electrically as in his comet delusions [by electrical discharges between the comet and Sun].
14 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing an electrostatic dust acceleration paper about mainstream comets made of ices and dust
14 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing an electrostatic charging paper about mainstream comets made of ices and dust
 
Sol88: Usual mindless parroting of the ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult

Seems there may be enough grunt to do the "work" required.
14 September 2017 Sol88: Usual mindless parroting of the ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult that has been already addressed.

This is the electrochemist Franklin Anariba being ignorant and deluded (blogging on Thunderbolts!) about comets.
 
Sol88: A lie about his comet delusions which do not include this jets fantasy

Coincidental that jets are seen to occur in the boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas? or linked?
Not coincidental that this is more les:
14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie about his comet delusions which do not include jets happen in the "boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas".
His cometary jets delusion is that jets are electrical discharges between the comet and the Sun. That means jets can only happen on high points of the lit areas.

14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie because he knows that the actual location of jets is part of what makes his comet ideas into delusions.
Jets issue from the neck of 67P which is the lowest part of the comet.
Jets issue from inside pits.
Jets issue from fissured cliff faces.
Jets issue from the back, dark side of 67P which is the furthest part of the comet from the Sun.

14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie because the ignorant and deluded page he cites is not about comet jets.

14 September 2017 Sol88: Maybe a lie because he does not cite any observations of jets "seen to occur in the boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas".
 
Last edited:
Not coincidental that this is more les:
14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie about his comet delusions which do not include jets happen in the "boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas".
His cometary jets delusion is that jets are electrical discharges between the comet and the Sun. That means jets can only happen on high points of the lit areas.

14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie because he knows that the actual location of jets is part of what makes his comet ideas into delusions.
Jets issue from the neck of 67P which is the lowest part of the comet.
Jets issue from inside pits.
Jets issue from fissured cliff faces.
Jets issue from the back, dark side of 67P which is the furthest part of the comet from the Sun.

14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie because the ignorant and deluded page he cites is not about comet jets.

14 September 2017 Sol88: Maybe a lie because he does not cite any observations of jets "seen to occur in the boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas".

Oh dear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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