The Electric Comet theory

[David Talbott]

But surely you can derive some upper and lower bounds from your hypothesis? Something like "the voltage must be at least X across a distance of no more than Y"?

Are you aware that Rosetta is at the comet? Why would I start throwing out arbitrary numbers when the fundamental factors for a reasonable quantitative prediction, now unknown, could well be published within a matter of weeks or months. Is the comet discharging electrically? If so, that will PROVE the electric comet hypothesis. AND, if so, the discovery will fundamentally change the direction of comet science, solar physics, and a lot more. So let's just say I believe the electric comet proponents will be much less surprised than those clinging to official doctrines about comets.

In the meantime I do not see anyone here offering quantitative predictions from the vantage point of the "official model." I believe that's largely due to the fact that, in the wake of the great comet surprises, no such model remains. If you can defend your double standard here, I'll pay a lot more attention than I'm inclined to give this topic while this double standard is so transparently obvious.

 

[rwguinn]

Prediction: Using standard Gravitation model of the universe as we know it, the comet will be at position "B" at time Tn-- CheckPrediction: if we launch from "A" at time T0, and using gravity model, perform these maneuvers at times T1, T2, T3, etc, we will have Rosetta at position "B" at time Tn- Check Prediction: We will detect ices, dust and rubble on the comet. CheckPrediction: The comet will become more active as it approaches the Sun- Check
Want more?

 

[David Talbott]

Something in this post by David Talbott bothered me, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Now I think I know what seemed not quite right, and am asking tusenfem (in particular) and Ziggurat, ben m, ... to please comment.

The chart showing the increase in ionic velocities in the solar wind, with distance from the Sun (out to the orbit of the Earth), is in Professor Donald Scott's book, The Electric Sky, Fig. 12, page 95.

Repeating myself, wherever a correction is required based on known fact, I'll be the "dog with a bone" in tracking down the details.

In fact, that's the only reason why I thought I'd stop by for two to three weeks. Episodically, I've found it helpful to give critics a full opportunity to pose challenges. I could enumerate several critical turns where such a pause paid off. One such instance led directly to the addendum to the Electric Comet documentary. It's titled, "The Electric Comet—'Water' from Deep Impact." That instance brought one of the most important revelations about the electrochemistry of comets, which will be a major topic at our next annual conference in June.

 

[Haig]

Could there possibly be a reason that the "something" you speak so passionately of has not been MEASURED?

Take your time.

Probably because the mainstream model creep towards their version of the Electric Comet hypothesis is still ongoing.

Consider a case in point:

Electric Comet 67P
"Its possible that when a comet as dust laden as 67P crosses regions of different electric field intensity within the heliosphere they might undergo a larger scale version of an electrostatic cleaning like the Mars Rover - but comet theorist will call such events a “flare up” and "outgassing". These interpretive characterizations will probably perish with the idea that spawned them in favor of ionization, acceleration, discharge, electrostatics, electrodynamics and like simply because of evidence from in situ data. Comet 67P also has its version of "hot spots". I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out years from now that those "hot spots" correlate with "beams".

The previous idea about comets had been carried so far that even planetary activities like that of the "jets of water ice" from Enceladus and its oscillating nature will have different implications. Nonetheless,media announcements and summaries are not really reflective of the science occurring behind the scenes. There are efforts at studying comets in terms of plasma electrodynamics but those efforts are usually overshadowed through such venues."

Electrical activity and dust lifting on Earth, Mars, and beyond
http://aoss-research.engin.umich.edu/e-field/publications/ElectrictDust_ISSI_2007_Revised.pdf

Abstract
We review electrical activity in blowing sand and dusty phenomena on Earth,Mars, the Moon, and asteroids. On Earth and Mars, blowing sand and dusty phenomena such as dust devils and dust storms are important geological processes and the primary sources of atmospheric dust. Large electric fields have been measured in terrestrial dusty phenomena and are predicted to occur on Mars. We review the charging mechanisms that produce these electric fields and discuss the implications of electrical activity on dust lifting and atmospheric chemistry. In addition, we review the ideas that support the occurrence of electric discharges on Mars. Finally, we discuss the evidence that electrostatics is responsible for dust transport on the Moon and asteroids.

.

Electric Comet 67P's Axis of Spin has been reported to be tilted ≈ 26˚, with respect to its orbital plane about the sun, similar to that of Earth's and has a magnetic field like it too

Singing Comet

Oscillations in the magnetic field of Comet 67P are creating a sound at a wavelength of around 40-50 millihertz, far below the range of human hearing. ESA scientists have increased the frequency by a factor of 10,000 in order to hear the song.
Karl-Heinz Glaßmeier, head of Space Physics and Space Sensorics at the Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany, says they are still trying to work out what is happening, but adds: "This is exciting because it is completely new to us."

.

Excerpts From The Electric Universe Electric Comets Part 2

we present the orthodox "dirty snowball" model and contrast it with the plasma discharge (electric comet) model. In presenting these in dot-point form it is easy to see that the plasma discharge model explains and even predicts the observations much more accurately than does the currently accepted model of comets.

.
If you have time - this 46 min video is worth looking at and ask yourself IF it applies to Electric Comets

Mihály Horányi: Dusty Plasma Processes

Dr. Mihály Horányi, PI of the Colorado Center for Lunar Dust and Atmospheric Studies (CCLDAS), discusses dusty plasma processes on the surfaces on airless planetary objects with a group of science communicators on July 21, 2012.

The 2012 Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) New Media Practitioners Professional Development Workshop brought seventeen bloggers, podcasters, and other science communicators to Boulder, Colorado, for a two-day intensive workshop with space scientists. The workshop was a collaborative professional development opportunity for attendees to learn about current issues surrounding future exploration of the Moon and other small bodies in our Solar System. CCLDAS sponsored the event.

 

[David Talbott]

Yessir Haig, the PDF on the electrical aspects of dust raising events on Earth and Mars is quite interesting:
"Electrical activity and dust lifting on Earth, Mars, and beyond"
http://aoss-research.engin.umich.edu...07_Revised.pdf

Interesting too, that the authors acknowledge there is presently no explanation as to the original cause of the electrifying dust movement, a dilemma that is particularly evident on Mars, where it seems no one has demonstrated how the mechanics of air circulation in such a rarified atmosphere (.008 that of Earth) can raise dust all. Just another instance where concrete experimental demonstrations should be able to show the role of "electric wind" in such events. The gathering of towering vortices on the dust storm fronts of Mars provides an inspiring example that we've taken seriously in organizing a research group on the subject.

Many lessons likely as well for the electric comet research, including the dust configurations on 67P.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

To Lukraak_Sisser: most of the questions you've asked above would not be asked if you'd followed this discussion. Everyone's time is limited, and that includes my own. But your fourth question makes a key point pretty well.



Your acknowledgment above is probably more significant than you realize. HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars have been spent globally in recent decades trying to recreate, in a laboratory environment, the imagined thermonuclear furnace at the core of the Sun. The great attractor was the hope of ending the world's energy problems. But it does not appear that any experiment has succeeded in producing more energy than it required to get nuclear fusion. (Keep in mind that I'm making this statement based on information available three years ago; the paper I presented at the NPA mtg in 2011 has not been updated.)

What has not been explored with any seriousness is the possibility of significant electrical contributions to the Sun's activity from the heliosphere itself and beyond. To see why this is so important, one need only consider the results of the IBEX probe exploring the heliospheric boundary. Then ask what is acting to organize the astonishing ribbon of ENAs enclosing the boundary. The boundary environment cannot be electrically neutral.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5955/964.figures-only
[See Related Resources cited as well]

As a footnote, I've been assured of a fascinating fact by one who would know. All of the theoretical predictions relating to neutral kinetics at the boundary—the very predictions from which the IBEX project emerged—were proven wrong. All, that is, except a prediction concerning electrical transactions across the boundary and into interstellar space.

Out of the Electric Universe movement, a laboratory project has emerged. It involves highly capable engineers and PhD's across a variety of specialties, including laboratory plasma science. It has led directly to the first experimental phases in a new conceptual approach to the Sun and to star formation. The project was initially funded with a million dollars (an interesting contrast to the BILLIONS already spent asking the wrong questions). The first test phase in the design of experiments has surprised every member of the team.

But yes, much more experimental work lies ahead of us. For example, the chamber used in the aforementioned experimental work will almost certainly provide an ideal environment for testing the electric comet. I'd love to say more, but I'd be betraying trust to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon

The problem isn't recreating nuclear fusion, the problem is recreating it in a way that doesn't turn the surrounding countryside in a crater.

 

[David Talbott]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon

The problem isn't recreating nuclear fusion, the problem is recreating it in a way that doesn't turn the surrounding countryside in a crater.

But is the challenge to be answered by reproducing what we THINK is going on inside the sun, or by achieving what is EVIDENCED at or close to the surface of the Sun and reflected in variations in neutrino production?

With each new probe exploring the Sun and its domain, we get closer to measuring what is occurring at the interfacial boundaries, those just below the visible surface, those at the visible surface, those above the visible surface, and those at the edge of the heliosphere. As Alfvén suggested years ago, when advising astronomers on how to analyze electrical behavior in space, look at the boundary conditions.

If the contribution of a heliospheric electric field will explain the dominant anomalies of the Sun, it will also makes sense of the COMET'S apparent electrical discharge activity.

 

[tusenfem]

This discussion would get a lot more meaningful if someone would come on to this list and challenge any statement of fact in the Electric Comet documentary. There, factual findings combine with quotes from respected authorities in the comet sciences to make clear that a coherent comet theory no longer exists.

Apparently you have trouble reading, there are LOADS of direct questions to you (and haig and sol), but just take the post by ben m above.

The dirty snowball model failed to predict comet behavior. As of today, a falsified model has found no replacement because its proponents could not break free from two fatally discredited assumptions: that comets accreted billions of years ago from icy "stardust," and that comet activity is due to warming by the Sun.

Failed to predict what, exactly? Outgassing, field line draping, cometotail formation, X-ray emission, etc. etc. Seems like the mainstream model, which has left the dirty snowball since 1986 after the Halley flyby, is doing pretty well.

As explorations continued the situation just grew worse. A distinguished authority confessed, "It’s a mystery to me how comets work at all." This exemplary confession speaks for science at its best, on those occasions when fundamental ideas have lost their predictive ability. The author of the quote was Donald Brownlee of the University of Washington, principal investigator of the Stardust Mission.

And who was this distinguished authority?
Donald Brownlee apparently, but I can only find this quote on woo sites, and not find the context in which this was said, most likely at a press conference.

But Reality Check's couldn't find the quote except on pages citing the Thunderbolts Project. So he decided that we must have made the quote up. How about actually looking beyond a superficial Internet search? The quote is from an article by Stuart Clark, September 9, 2005, published by the NewSientist.com news service.

NewScientist I presume, and not really a good source for real science.

To the best of my knowledge there are no misquotes in the documentary, and the facts presented stand. Same goes for the addendum, "The Water of Deep Impact." As I've stated more than once, any necessary correction will be appreciated and acted upon.

I don't watch documentaries, which suffer from the same problem as press releases.

Now, how about giving some answers? (he asked for the 50th time)

I do not know of any reason why either should be excluded if the comet is moving through plasma regions of different charge (a fundamental assumption of the electric comet hypothesis).

We have well qualified electrical engineers in our group. They understand the elementary question and don't need to be tutored on the instruments that would assist in detecting glow discharge or arcing. As to what things might look like visually we have possible examples in the plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus. On the other hand, it's a bit humorous to see you asking me to predict specific energies, along with temporal and spatial parameters. The time for discussing that would be when something has actually been MEASURED, sufficiently to understand the scale of forces acting on the surface, right?

Could Rosetta finally confirm that the comet is discharging electrically? The electric comet hypothesis says yes, and that's quite sufficient for now. The standard model has predicted nothing of the sort, and that's quite sufficient for now too.

And another post "we have the experts, we have the knowlegde", but I am not going to tell you anything.

ladidadida

 

[Ziggurat]

But is the challenge to be answered by reproducing what we THINK is going on inside the sun, or by achieving what is EVIDENCED at or close to the surface of the Sun and reflected in variations in neutrino production?

Why on earth would you want to recreate conditions at the core of the sun in order to produce power? That's a stupid idea. It's a monumentally stupid idea. Not only are the pressures and temperatures incredibly hard to maintain, the power density is also pathetically low. Seriously, it's something like one Watt per cubic meter. You can't run a power plant, especially one that requires such incredible containment, on a measly one Watt per cubic meter.

But here's the thing, David: we're not trying to recreate what's going on in the core of the sun. That process is driven by proton-proton fusion, and it's slow. That's why the sun has lasted for billions of years. No, we're trying to do something different. We're trying to achieve deuterium and tritium fusion. It's MUCH easier to do than proton-proton fusion, and we've already got power densities far above what the sun produces.

As for what's powering the sun, well, there's really no question at this point. All the evidence points to fusion at the core of the sun. Nothing else works. Nothing else will produce the results we see. Hell, nothing else except fusion even has enough raw energy available. Alfven knew this. How did his supposed apostles forget?

 

[David Talbott]

Prediction: Using standard Gravitation model of the universe as we know it, the comet will be at position "B" at time Tn-- CheckPrediction: if we launch from "A" at time T0, and using gravity model, perform these maneuvers at times T1, T2, T3, etc, we will have Rosetta at position "B" at time Tn- Check Prediction: We will detect ices, dust and rubble on the comet. CheckPrediction: The comet will become more active as it approaches the Sun- Check
Want more?

Okay, stop the presses. Has something occurred that I missed? Rosetta has now detected appreciable ices on the surface of 67P?

I don't think so.

 

[David Talbott]

Apparently you have trouble reading, there are LOADS of direct questions to you (and haig and sol), but just take the post by ben m above.

Failed to predict what, exactly? Outgassing, field line draping, cometotail formation, X-ray emission, etc. etc. Seems like the mainstream model, which has left the dirty snowball since 1986 after the Halley flyby, is doing pretty well.

Good grief Tusenfem, you're not describing predictions of the standard theory, you're describing observations that were NOT originally predicted. The first prediction of comet x-rays, as I recall, actually came from an electrical theorist, a bit of a wild man, James McCanney. Okay, I could be mis-remembering, but correct me. What is absolutely clear is that comet science as a whole never spoke of x-rays before they were discovered.

Also, where is the evidence that any peer reviewed paper, speaking for commonly accepted theory, has ever abandoned the underlying idea of a comet as a mixture of dust and ice sublimating under the warmth of the Sun? The fact that a theory continually adjusts itself to a cascade of surprises does not confirm any predictive ability of the theory.

 

[David Talbott]

Why on earth would you want to recreate conditions at the core of the sun in order to produce power? That's a stupid idea.

Having followed the original enthusiasm for controlled thermonuclear fusion, I can tell you there is no doubt about it—the enthusiasm was inspired first and foremost by the thought of achieving what solar physicists BELIEVED the Sun was doing at its core. Go back and look at the rationales for tokamaks and spheromaks in the first decades of the adventure, when the "thermonuclear furnace of the Sun" was the overriding basis of confidence in achieving "controlled fusion within 20 years." That was more than 50 years ago, though the same confidence was expressed 20 years later. Calling it all a stupid idea today doesn't eliminate the actual history of the idea.

 

[Ziggurat]

Having followed the original enthusiasm for controlled thermonuclear fusion, I can tell you there is no doubt about it—the enthusiasm was inspired first and foremost by the thought of achieving what solar physicists BELIEVED the Sun was doing at its core. Go back and look at the rationales for tokamaks and spheromaks in the first decades of the adventure, when the "thermonuclear furnace of the Sun" was the overriding basis of confidence in achieving "controlled fusion within 20 years." That was more than 50 years ago, though the same confidence was expressed 20 years later. Calling it all a stupid idea today doesn't eliminate the actual history of the idea.

You have confused public relations for science. The idea was never to replicate stellar proton-proton fusion. Calling it the "furnace of the Sun" or whatever is how you sell it to people who don't understand nuclear physics, because it's close enough for what they care about. But it was never, ever about replicating the actual fusion processes of the sun. You have merely projected your own ignorance about nuclear physics onto others.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Having followed the original enthusiasm for controlled thermonuclear fusion, I can tell you there is no doubt about it—the enthusiasm was inspired first and foremost by the thought of achieving what solar physicists BELIEVED the Sun was doing at its core. Go back and look at the rationales for tokamaks and spheromaks in the first decades of the adventure, when the "thermonuclear furnace of the Sun" was the overriding basis of confidence in achieving "controlled fusion within 20 years." That was more than 50 years ago, though the same confidence was expressed 20 years later. Calling it all a stupid idea today doesn't eliminate the actual history of the idea.

But as has been pointed out, soundbites for newspapers =/= the actual science.
A quick calculation with solar power output and solar volume will, as ziggurat mentioned show the sun produces less power per m³ then some compost heaps. If we wish to use the well known and documented phenomenon of nuclear fusion for power generation we'll need to make it work a lot more efficient on earth. Which is hard to do.
However, nuclear fusion DOES occur, we know the exact requirements for it to happen and the gravity at the center of the sun is enough to cause it to happen, which is proven when we re-create those conditions by applying external pressure.
In other words, the mechanism for the non-EU sun is a proven fact. THe EU mechanism on the other hand does not exist at all beyond 'electricity must be doing it'. No caluclations, no testable predictions and no practical evidence to show the fusion model is not the only model that would be able to generate such low amounts of power without another larger powersource driving it.

Which pretty much sums up all the EU predictions, including the electric comets.

 

[David Talbott]

You have confused public relations for science. The idea was never to replicate stellar proton-proton fusion. Calling it the "furnace of the Sun" or whatever is how you sell it to people who don't understand nuclear physics, because it's close enough for what they care about.

But then again no one reviewing the history of the idea would doubt that the imagined "thermonuclear furnace" of the Sun provided a huge inspiration and confidence to nuclear physicists as they strove to get the tokamaks and spheromaks to produce real power output. The thermonuclear Sun was the "proof" that thermonuclear fusion could be "controlled," before all of the failed attempts that followed, using every imaginable variation on the theme.

It has not gone well, right? Seems to me it would be a healthy thing to see the historical role of an idea that appears to have not panned out.

 

[The Man]

The point is that mere warming by the Sun will never account for the litany of comet outbursts, which is why comet scientists are moving increasingly toward an electrical understanding of this behavior.

The cited article makes no such assertions. So the point still is that the article you cited doesn't support your point.

Purported explanations by reference to pockets of subsurface gas exploding through an insulating surface layer simply do not work. That would imply sudden eruptions and rapidly declining energies over extremely short time frames. Nothing of the sort has ever been documented. Nor have we ever seen ANY exposed ice that would be the first prediction of the explanation.

I'm sure there are plenty of " Purported explanations" that just don't work. Where has a comet undergoing EDM been documented? Have we ever seen ANY comet undergoing EDM?. That would be the first prediction of the explanation.

Is your house insulated? If so does it still get hot in the summer and cold in the winter requiring some form of HVAC? Insulation doesn't stop the transfer of heat energy it just slows it down.

Heck, even an insulating brick has three times the thermal conductivity of fiberglass.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html

Of this quandary, now inescapable, 67P gives us a splendid demonstration. The standard explanation of nucleus erosion, when applied to this bizarrely irregular form, would require that subsurface ice already be prominently on display. Where is this subsurface ice?

Well, subsurface of course. Why do you call it "subsurface ice" if you don't expect to find it subsurface?

Well, maybe we'll find some. But are those who still cling to an outdated model willing to stick their necks out, at least far enough to acknowledge that the exposure of subsurface ice would be a certainty if this sharply carved nucleus is doing what has been so long claimed about comets. I hope everyone will keep an eye on this question over the coming months, while also watching for well-focused glow discharge on the surface. Perhaps even visible and sustained electrical arcing where image resolution is sufficient.

Well, one probably wouldn't expect comets to be consistent is composition and density throughout. With the possibility of a couple of originally separate cemetery bodies coming together one might expect the composition of the junction region to be different than that of the original bodies.

 

[The Man]

Your acknowledgment above is probably more significant than you realize. HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars have been spent globally in recent decades trying to recreate, in a laboratory environment, the imagined thermonuclear furnace at the core of the Sun. The great attractor was the hope of ending the world's energy problems. But it does not appear that any experiment has succeeded in producing more energy than it required to get nuclear fusion. (Keep in mind that I'm making this statement based on information available three years ago; the paper I presented at the NPA mtg in 2011 has not been updated.)

Really, how about some of these experiments?

 

[tusenfem]

Are you aware that Rosetta is at the comet? Why would I start throwing out arbitrary numbers when the fundamental factors for a reasonable quantitative prediction, now unknown, could well be published within a matter of weeks or months. Is the comet discharging electrically? If so, that will PROVE the electric comet hypothesis. AND, if so, the discovery will fundamentally change the direction of comet science, solar physics, and a lot more. So let's just say I believe the electric comet proponents will be much less surprised than those clinging to official doctrines about comets.

Maybe because there is an enormous amount of electromagnetic plasma data from Giotto, Vega 1 and Vega 2, from their flybys by comet 1P/Halley?

In the meantime I do not see anyone here offering quantitative predictions from the vantage point of the "official model." I believe that's largely due to the fact that, in the wake of the great comet surprises, no such model remains. If you can defend your double standard here, I'll pay a lot more attention than I'm inclined to give this topic while this double standard is so transparently obvious.

Oh, but I did write a predictive paper, actually, about ion cyclotron waves during the approach phase. Another colleague of mine wrote a paper about the plasma interacting of the solar wind with the outgassing comet and found the actual waves that we are measuring now around the comet. before we found them in the data.

How is that for predictions? If you want to play with the big boys you have to keep up with the actual recent science that is being published and not stay stuck in the old "dirty snowball" of decades ago.

 

[tusenfem]

Electric Comet 67P's Axis of Spin has been reported to be tilted ≈ 26˚, with respect to its orbital plane about the sun, similar to that of Earth's and has a magnetic field like it too

Singing Comet

Wow, did you just discover that Chury has a magnetic field?
Please, submit immediately to Nature!

 

[Matthew Cline]

The thermonuclear Sun was the "proof" that thermonuclear fusion could be "controlled," before all of the failed attempts that followed, using every imaginable variation on the theme.

What's failed is getting out more energy than is put in, because creating the conditions for the fusion takes energy. That isn't a problem at the center of the Sun.

Are you aware that Rosetta is at the comet? Why would I start throwing out arbitrary numbers when the fundamental factors for a reasonable quantitative prediction, now unknown, could well be published within a matter of weeks or months.

Why hasn't anyone on the EC side done any such calculations in the past several decades? Is the point of view of EC proponents "there'll be in situ measurements a few decades from now, so why bother doing any calculations"?

As far as I know, the solar wind is charge neutral (over distances larger than ~a few Debye lengths); to a first approximation, it consists of equal numbers of electrons and protons (ignoring any neutral species, such as hydrogen atoms). If there were a radial electric field, the protons and electrons would be going in opposite directions, wouldn't they? And yet in situ observations of the solar wind are consistent with them going in the same direction, right?

IIRC, the "Iron Sun" proponent Mozina claimed that the electric field accelerated the protons, and the protons then dragged the electrons along with them (or maybe it was visa-versa)