Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's a link for Sol's second quote

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/802/1/L12

Note that the "equivalent bulk density" figure missing from his quote is "< 1 kg m-3"

Sol still wants us to think the barest mention of dust or charge implies rocks or lightning bolts. Sad.

Did they mention how they arrived at that figure? <1kgm-3?

particle crosses a laser curtain, and is detected by photoelectric sensors (GDS, grain detection system) registering a signal (proportional to the particle cross section times the albedo) and the time at which the laser curtain is crossed. Then the particle hits the impact sensor (IS, with the same GDS cross section, A=10−2m2), which registers the individual particle impact momentum and its travel time from GDS to IS. The combination of GDS and IS measurements (GDS+IS particles) provides the particle mass and velocity, and constrains the particle bulk density by means of calibration curves (Della Corte et al. 2016) derived on the ground using cometary analogues (Ferrari et al. 2014). If the particle is too small to be detected by the GDS system, it may be detected by the IS sensor only (IS particles): in this case the particle momentum is converted to the mass assuming the mean value of the velocities of the GDS+IS particles in the same momentum bin, or assuming the velocities predicted by tail models (Fulle et al. 2010) if Ngds+is =0 in that mass bin. The spacecraft velocities listed in Table 1 are always much lower than the dust velocities measured by GIADA.

3. PARTICLE CHARGEThe charge carried by a fluffy particle of radius R and equilibrium potential U iswhere is the vacuum permittivity, for spheres and for non-spherical or fluffy grains (Auer etal. 2007). The potential of the Rosetta spacecraft was measured at V (Nilsson et al. 2015). Weassume that this value was measured in the expected plasma density of m and energy of 100 eV.Dust charging models were computed taking into account currents provided by cold solar wind ions andelectrons, photoelectrons, coma electrons, and the secondary electrons induced by hot and cold plasmacomponents. These simulations (Figure 3) show that the dust equilibrium potential is set by the electroncollection current from the ambient plasma and by the secondary electron current emitted by the dust,which depends on the yield parameter (Mukai et al. 2001), for compact grains of olivineor graphite (Lin & Joy 2005; Balcon et al. 2012). The yield parameter decreases in time due to surfaceaging effects (Davies & Dennison 1997). In fluffy particles is lower than in compact grains
because most secondary electrons with an energy of a few eV are ejected toward other parts of the same particleand reabsorbed. Here we consider as a free parameter, and we fix its value according to the assumedplasma parameters and the measured U value.
sorry bout the cut n paste

DENSITY AND CHARGE OF PRISTINE FLUFFY PARTICLES FROM COMET67P/CHURYUMOV–GERASIMENKO

So maybe <1kgm-3 may be off :confused:
 
If their flux will significantlyincrease, fluffy particles of equivalent density kg m could be invoked to explain the nucleusdensity of 470 kg m (Sierks et al. 2015).

True?
 
The cross sections of fluffy aggregates and compact particles are similar. Since the spacecraft spent mosttime at the terminator, there is a bias due to Lorentz forces enhancing the flux of charged aggregates. Thesingle particles detected by the OSIRIS cameras (Rotundi et al. 2015; Sierks et al. 2015) have a 15% probabilityof of being fluffy (45 fluffy aggregates versus 262 compact particles).

How does that jive with the assumed bulk density? Most of the fluffy particles (dust) are <1kgm-3 and the compact particles up to 3x103m-3. (Rotundi et al. 2015)

Not too sure, but it would have to say something about it?
 
Last edited:
So if the dust is being charged even in the diamagnetic cavity, how's that come about?

Jets are quite active around perihelion and when Rosetta would have been inside the diamagnetic cavity?

Super volatiles or not there's the very fine dust on a surface which looks hard and "felt" hard even if it was "ice" presumably and overlayed with course granular un-consolidated material
 
<snip>

by the way, the above was predicted and expected in the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!
Really?

Got a paper or three you can cite to back up your claim?

just maybe COMETS are an electrical phenomena <snip>
Just maybe pig will fly ...

Just maybe sol88 will publish a paper, in Icarus, showing that comets are an electrical phenomenon ... :rolleyes:
 
We need to have this minor detail cleared up so we can directly compare models based on the new observations and data (and papers) now available.

For those lurkers who are unaware of the history of the ELECTRIC COMETS idea and think it's just from a bunch of, as JD116 bangs on about, Velikovskian woo merchants and dismissed out of hand, then arm yourself with real knowledge.

Here a little history on the ELECTRIC COMET.

  1. History of Electric Comet Theory: An Introduction
  2. History of Electric Comet Theory: Part 2
Interesting set of material, sol88.

Do you plan to update this by including the Velikovskian woo merchants', um, contributions?
 
I don't know. :):)

Same token, why do some asteroids show comas DD?
More pertinent, surely, is DD's question ... per the EC "theory", why do some asteroids have tails but most do not?

After all, this thread is about the EC, is it not?

And anyway, as an enthusiastic Comet Hunter, you already know the answers to your own question, don't you sol88? No need to be coy ...
 
And the dust is charged!

DENSITY AND CHARGE OF PRISTINE FLUFFY PARTICLES FROM COMET67P/CHURYUMOV–GERASIMENKO

Well that should not be a surprise, as that is what dust does in a plasma, which is veeeeeeery mainstream.
 
More pertinent, surely, is DD's question ... per the EC "theory", why do some asteroids have tails but most do not?

After all, this thread is about the EC, is it not?

And anyway, as an enthusiastic Comet Hunter, you already know the answers to your own question, don't you sol88? No need to be coy ...

Oh but we cannot ask questions about the EC, EC is true, and you know it!
To question is to doubt, to doubt is sinfull and the thunderbolts of the gods will smite you!

This thread started on 6 July 2009, and since then we have obtained not one direct answer of any of the EC (EU, ES) proponents on how things work in their version of the universe. I guess if you are not part of the incrowd you are not allowed to know. And I am not sure if Sol belongs to the incrowd, because he does not seem to be able to explain anything either, or he has signed a non-disclosure agreement with T&T.
 
:confused:

No, the new assumptions are volatiles, including supervolitiles, can not remove the ubiquitous "dust' that we see in the COMA! On the nucleus we see granular material down to instruments resolution under that was impervious the MUPUS probe (well consolidated material)

This is a claim that Skorov makes, however, reading the conclusions of that paper, makes me wonder.

skorov et al. said:
A way out of the impasse requires focusing on a revised common model assumption listed at the beginning of this section.

At the beginning of that section, however, are no common model assumptions listed, only what they calculated, but anywho.

This is a model, which has to be verified, not something to be taken as gospel as you seem to be doing right away.
 
This is a claim that Skorov makes, however, reading the conclusions of that paper, makes me wonder.



At the beginning of that section, however, are no common model assumptions listed, only what they calculated, but anywho.

This is a model, which has to be verified, not something to be taken as gospel as you seem to be doing right away.

A few of those other papers mentioned further up also come to the same conclusion!
 
Oh but we cannot ask questions about the EC, EC is true, and you know it!
To question is to doubt, to doubt is sinfull and the thunderbolts of the gods will smite you!

This thread started on 6 July 2009, and since then we have obtained not one direct answer of any of the EC (EU, ES) proponents on how things work in their version of the universe. I guess if you are not part of the incrowd you are not allowed to know. And I am not sure if Sol belongs to the incrowd, because he does not seem to be able to explain anything either, or he has signed a non-disclosure agreement with T&T.

Oh please Tusenfem, I've known you long enough to know that you know what the ELECTRIC COMET model is and what the implications are.
 
diamagnetic cavity has no magnetic field, but still has a bucketload of plasma

which includes a complex dusty plasma?

And are you're the full bottle on current sheets, draped magnetic fields, flux ropes(in relation to comets), hell even double layers!

So let's talk about how that all comes together and works under the common cometary model...:boggled:
 
which includes a complex dusty plasma?

And are you're the full bottle on current sheets, draped magnetic fields, flux ropes(in relation to comets), hell even double layers!

So let's talk about how that all comes together and works under the common cometary model...:boggled:

Uhhh ... no, I don't think so.

Over the last 8 years you have learned zilch about basic mainstream plasma physics. If you come up with weird questions like:

Oh wait, how is the energy getting there to charge all the dust up?

Goodness! YOU are the expert on the electric comet, so you tell us!

It is all quite easy in the mainstream (dusty) plasma physics, and I am sure it has been explained already a few times in this thread. So, the answer is still no, because it does not do any good, we can discuss, and I (and others) can explain, and you will say you "understand" and two pages on you will come up with the same question or the same debunked argument.

Why not ask T&T how it works and come back and explain it to us.

Have a great weekend.
 
Rosetta RPC just tweeted that:

@Rosetta_RPC said:
Cool, Cyril Simon Wedlund et al. just published a paper in A&A: Hybrid modelling of cometary plasma environments I tinyurl.com/yao4zjkw

Full title is:
Hybrid modelling of cometary plasma environments
I. Impact of photoionisation, charge exchange, and electron ionisation on bow shock and cometopause at 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
 
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