The Electric Comet theory

[Ziggurat]

What do you claim is so wrong with the Electric Comet hypothesis??? that btw all of you claim not to understand.

What's wrong? Well, let's enumerate some of the basics:

1) Comets have fundamentally different composition from asteroids
2) Comets do not originate from planetary material
3) The coma of a comet is not caused by electric discharge
4) The coma of a comet is caused by sublimation of various frozen materials due to heating from solar irradiance

All of these things contradict what I understand the ECH to be. But although I believe I understand a few things about the ECH, there are plenty of things I don't understand, and I suspect that's because nobody, not even its advocates, understand. So I'll list a few of the open questions about what the ECH is:

1) What is the voltage change experienced by a comet during its orbit?
2) What is the charge on a comet?
3) What is the current flowing into or through a comet?
4) What is the composition of a comet?

One was the production of water between the solar wind and the coma/nucleus (not the right type of water for mainstream ) but Paladin17 (welcome to the thread) has explained how it is possible within the hypothesis and still you want a fully fledged "model"

Nope. Doesn't work, for two reasons. First, as has already been pointed out, even aside from isotope issues, there are many orders of magnitude more water being produced than the ECH can explain. But more specifically in regards to Paladin17's idea, he fundamentally misunderstands how electrolytic refinement of deuterium from water works. You don't just run current through water and presto, you get heavy water. The first step in the process involves producing lots of hydrogen gas from water, which in this case doesn't solve the problem of how you get the water to begin with. But it's the second step which is really impossible here: once you've got all this hydrogen gas, which contains traces of deuterium, you refine the deuterium from the ordinary hydrogen by liquefying your gas and then distilling it (ordinary hydrogen molecules boil away from the liquid phase faster than deuterium-containing molecules). It's only after the deuterium has been separated from ordinary hydrogen that you re-combine it with oxygen to form heavy water. But there's no liquefaction of hydrogen going on here (and no possible way it could happen on a comet either), so the process obviously can't happen. Paladin17's idea is nonsense.

 

[paladin17]

To your idea at the last sentence, what maintains the charge separation?

If I understood correctly what are you meaning, then the answer is obvious: it is the solar activity.

ehhhh 10^-6 liters per second? You do know we need at least 0.5 liters?
That calculation has been done by my in post 2250 already.

I am aware of the result that is around 0.5 liters (even 1-5 liters). And I suspect that it is obtained from some spectroscopical considerations, although I'm not sure how exactly it is been done. So if you can point it out explicitly, it would be just perfect.
Also I think that it is worth considering that the cometary coma could (in my opinion) act as a proton-catcher, or a kind of proton lens, if you like. And if it is the area of the coma (not the core) we are talking about, then those extra 6 orders are easily provided. It may sound pretty stupid, I agree, but I would certainly like to explore all the possibilities.

But what is the "EC model (or hypothesis)"?

From your posts it would seem that you have some such model/hypothesis in mind; may I ask what? And as I cannot read your mind, what primary source can I refer to, so that I may check that my understanding of the ech is the same as yours (for example)?

Fellow ISF member Haig has posted links to a huge amount of material, much of it containing descriptions of what seem to something like an ech (or EC model); unfortunately, many are contradictory, many old, many with unknown authors, some documents, some videos, ...

David Talbott has said that there are no papers describing the ech, published in peer-reviewed journals or not. In light of this, what can one use as the most recent, accurate, complete, (etc) source (describing the ech)?

What do/did you use?


Thanks for that.

Maybe my answer will disappoint you, but I'm almost as new to this as you are (or ever "newer").
My opinion on all of these topics here is just this: my own opinion. I'm not a member of any conspiracy or even scientific group (not in this area, at least).
It is true that I'm highly influenced by mr. Talbott and I'm familiar with a certain quantity of the Thunderbolts project documents, but I haven't got a clear picture of my own yet, and I certainly would not want to speak on their behalf: I do not feel that I have enough knowledge of their ideas, nor do I have a moral right to do so.
I feel that only the view that is independent and free of such party-choosing like "mainstream" vs. "EU" can be productive here. As I said: there are no "thunder people" (as well as "mainstream people"), nor there should be, in my opinion. These labels are simply inappropriate and probably have never done anyone any good.
I'm only interested in exploration, not label-sticking or personal insults. And as long as the electric universe ideas provide some fresh view on comets, for example, I say: why won't we use that? Try starting from here. If we'll encounter a dead end, then return to another viewpoint etc.
Well, that's sort of a big offtopic, so excuse me for it.

I'll try to answer, though.
The key thing about this model/hypothesis for me is some sort of electromagnetic interaction that takes place between the Sun (through its particles or maybe even fields) and the comet. One of the "byproducts" of this interaction is the electrochemical reaction that creates water. The precise electrodynamics of this whole process (e.g. how exactly the charge distribution looks like, where the currents are going etc.) is quite unclear to me now, but I find that there are a couple of moments that suggest this approach being plausible (I'm quite sure mr. Talbott have already pointed out them somewhere here).
The idea of a lightning-induced formation of comets is also interesting, but I understand that it is not discussed here?

I think that most of the info on electric comet may be found in the video of the Thunderbolts project ("Episode 3 Symbols of an Alien Sky: The Electric Comet"). At least all of the key points are there.
And the rest is here and now. How would this approach develop in the light of recent findings etc. - that's what is being decided now.

 

[phunk]

eeee-uwww, TMI!!!

I was just talking about the water vapor I exhale, you're the one with a dirty mind.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Also I think that it is worth considering that the cometary coma could (in my opinion) act as a proton-catcher, or a kind of proton lens, if you like. And if it is the area of the coma (not the core) we are talking about, then those extra 6 orders are easily provided. It may sound pretty stupid, I agree, but I would certainly like to explore all the possibilities.

That would imply that there should be oxygen rather than water near the nucleus. The concentration of oxygen should fall as the concentration of water rises with increased distance to the core.
Is that the case?

 

[Ziggurat]

Also I think that it is worth considering that the cometary coma could (in my opinion) act as a proton-catcher, or a kind of proton lens, if you like. And if it is the area of the coma (not the core) we are talking about, then those extra 6 orders are easily provided. It may sound pretty stupid, I agree, but I would certainly like to explore all the possibilities.

No. To act as a "catcher", you'd have to be liberating a considerable amount of oxygen from the surface of the comet, which would then make its way to the coma where it would combine with hydrogen. But first, there's no mechanism for releasing all that oxygen, and second (and most important), we'd see that oxygen in the spectroscopic studies, but it's not there.

And there's no way that the coma could act as a lens. First, it's on the wrong side of the comet. Second, while the volume of the coma is big, the cross section is not. Most particles from the solar wind will pass through it without any collisions, and the collisions which do occur will be random, not directed. Third, you can't redirect the protons with a field because that would take a huge field, and the comet simply doesn't have a huge field, magnetic or electric, and that too would show up in the spectroscopy as either Stark or Zeeman splitting.

 

[Dancing David]

If I understood correctly what are you meaning, then the answer is obvious: it is the solar activity.

So what keeps the oppositely charged particles from interacting and negating each other, that thing where opposites attract?


BTW how much current for the electrolysis?

 

[paladin17]

Right, so taking this you need 10^-4 moles of electrons per second.
Using the Faraday constant this gives 10^-4 * 9.65*10⁴= 9.65 Ampere.
Continously. Assuming no energy loss.
What powers this?

The Sun, of course. Please calculate how much current goes from it every second in all directions (due to the solar wind). It will be much more than some silly couple of amps, I assure you.

And as has been pointed out, a LOT more water is found so you need several orders of magnitude more power.

As I've pointed out myself, I want to know exactly how it was been measured. Well, that's kind of another topic.

And give a good practical example that electrolysis even WORKS in the near vacuum of a cometary halo.

I don't have one. Do you have any ideas why it shouldn't?

And still explain why this massive amount of continous power input seems to totally ignore the rosetta probe itself.

Maybe because the potential difference is too low (due to the small size of the probe), or because it is made of a conductor, so no external electric field can actually get inside and screw up things. Or both. And maybe something else.

To give an idea of comparison, this much charge/second is about half of what travels trough an average lightningbolt.

I think you are mistaken. The amperage in a lightning bolt is about 10⁵ amps. And it is 3.42 A flowing right under my hands right now somewhere inside my laptop. I guess that doesn't mean that I'm riding a lightning, or something.

That would imply that there should be oxygen rather than water near the nucleus. The concentration of oxygen should fall as the concentration of water rises with increased distance to the core.
Is that the case?

I'm not sure that the reaction should take place in the coma itself. This would mean that some alternative mechanism is at work, I guess.
I'm saying that the coma rather can act like a "lens that focuses protons in the nucleus". How exactly is it possible, and if it is at all, remains an open question. Maybe there is some sort of scattering present.

And there's no way that the coma could act as a lens. First, it's on the wrong side of the comet.

I'm thinking about how Earth's magnetosphere works. The energetic particles flow around it and yet are being sucked in the polar areas, like, halfway through (I just hope you understand what I mean).
What about something like that? Maybe the comet also has some dipole magnetic moment?

Second, while the volume of the coma is big, the cross section is not.

By the way, where can one find some info on that? It seems counterintuitive, since the coma usually is pretty bright.

Third, you can't redirect the protons with a field because that would take a huge field

My calculations (the proton needs to be pushed 1000 km along the X-axis by the time of 1 s with an electric field; 1000 km is the approximate size of the coma and 1 s is the time it takes the proton with a speed of 500 km/s to give it a miss) give 10⁴ Volts of the homogenic field. That corresponds to the 10^-2 V/m of the field (if the distance is 1000 km). Which is 4 orders of magnitude lower than we have in our atmosphere, for example.
Hope I didn't make any mistakes here.

 

[Haig]

What's wrong? Well, let's enumerate some of the basics:

1) Comets have fundamentally different composition from asteroids
2) Comets do not originate from planetary material
3) The coma of a comet is not caused by electric discharge
4) The coma of a comet is caused by sublimation of various frozen materials due to heating from solar irradiance

All of these things contradict what I understand the ECH to be. But although I believe I understand a few things about the ECH, there are plenty of things I don't understand, and I suspect that's because nobody, not even its advocates, understand. So I'll list a few of the open questions about what the ECH is:

1) What is the voltage change experienced by a comet during its orbit?
2) What is the charge on a comet?
3) What is the current flowing into or through a comet?
4) What is the composition of a comet?



Nope. Doesn't work, for two reasons. First, as has already been pointed out, even aside from isotope issues, there are many orders of magnitude more water being produced than the ECH can explain. But more specifically in regards to Paladin17's idea, he fundamentally misunderstands how electrolytic refinement of deuterium from water works. You don't just run current through water and presto, you get heavy water. The first step in the process involves producing lots of hydrogen gas from water, which in this case doesn't solve the problem of how you get the water to begin with. But it's the second step which is really impossible here: once you've got all this hydrogen gas, which contains traces of deuterium, you refine the deuterium from the ordinary hydrogen by liquefying your gas and then distilling it (ordinary hydrogen molecules boil away from the liquid phase faster than deuterium-containing molecules). It's only after the deuterium has been separated from ordinary hydrogen that you re-combine it with oxygen to form heavy water. But there's no liquefaction of hydrogen going on here (and no possible way it could happen on a comet either), so the process obviously can't happen. Paladin17's idea is nonsense.

Thanks for that

"Some of these may be products of a chain reaction (which implies creation of the molecules above the surface of the comet), and some may be purely existing on the comet:"

Water (H2O)

Carbon monoxide (CO)

Carbon dioxide (CO2)

Ammonia (NH3)

Methane (CH4)

Methanol (CH3OH)
Formaldehyde (CH2O)

Hydrogen sulphide (H2S)

Hydrogen cyanide (HCN)

Sulphur dioxide (SO2)

Carbon disulphide (CS2)

What is the chemical composition of the solar wind? my bold

The solar wind is a collection of streams of energetic particles that originate on the Sun. You can think of the particles of the solar wind as nothing less than the solar corona itself (Noyes, 1982). This is because the distant corona expands outwards due to not enough restraining force from gravity, or from the pressure of the interstellar gas, to confine the distant corona. The solar wind escapes through the coronal holes at supersonic speeds. As the outer corona disperses, it must be replaced by gases welling up from below (lower corona).

The composition of the solar wind is a mixture of materials found in the solar plasma, composed of ionized hydrogen (electrons and protons) with an 8% component of helium (alpha particles) and trace amounts of heavy ions and atomic nuclei: C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe ripped apart by heating of the Sun's outer atmosphere, that is, the corona (Feldman et al., 1998).

SOHO also identified traces of some elements for the first time such as P, Ti, Cr and Ni and an assortment of solar wind isotopes identified for the first time: Fe 54 and 56; Ni 58,60,62 (Galvin, 1996).

Note that although the solar wind is electrically balanced, the solar wind consists almost exclusively of charged particles (stripped away nuclei from atoms) and is an excellent electrical conductor. These electrically conducting particles is technically known as a plasma, so it may be misleading to think of the solar wind as like Earth "winds".

 

[Haig]

Thunderbolt comments are biting on this NASA article

"The water mismatch between 67P and Earth is interesting. Also important to consider is the nitrogen mismatch, if any."

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-200

As planetary scientists investigate the mystery of how the solar system formed, isotope ratios are one of the most valuable types of clues they are able to collect. In planetary atmospheres and surface materials, the specific amount of one form of an element, like nitrogen, relative to another form of that same element can be a powerful diagnostic tool because it is closely tied to the conditions under which materials form.

The study also has implications for Earth. It supports the emerging view that ammonia ice from comets is not likely to be the primary source of Earth's nitrogen. In the past, researchers assumed a connection between comets, Titan and Earth, and supposed the nitrogen isotope ratio in Titan's original atmosphere was the same as that ratio is on Earth today. Measurements of the nitrogen isotope ratio at Titan by several instruments of the NASA and ESA Cassini-Huygens mission showed that this is not the case -- meaning this ratio is different on Titan and Earth -- while measurements of the ratio in comets have borne out their connection to Titan. This means the sources of Earth's and Titan's nitrogen must have been different.

"I love it. Their theory is falling apart at the seams. It's also the first whiff "officially" that "Nebular collapse theory" is collapsing

They're still stuck on everything being "transported" to planets from tiny rocks, however That tunnel vision, a fixation on one thing to the exclusion of all others, is characteristic of autism

Now they think the comet carried an atmosphere to Titan and not Earth :?: You can see them desperately trying to save a dying theory that not even their probe can save which was designed with extreme bias to confirm the dirty snowball/delivery-of-oceans-and-atmospheres-to-planets theory. I can't wait to see the rest of the "mismatching" data they are either withholding or still collating. Rosetta is gradually proving devastating for them "

 

[Sol88]

Thunderbolt comments are biting on this NASA article

"The water mismatch between 67P and Earth is interesting. Also important to consider is the nitrogen mismatch, if any."

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-200


"I love it. Their theory is falling apart at the seams. It's also the first whiff "officially" that "Nebular collapse theory" is collapsing

They're still stuck on everything being "transported" to planets from tiny rocks, however That tunnel vision, a fixation on one thing to the exclusion of all others, is characteristic of autism

Now they think the comet carried an atmosphere to Titan and not Earth :?: You can see them desperately trying to save a dying theory that not even their probe can save which was designed with extreme bias to confirm the dirty snowball/delivery-of-oceans-and-atmospheres-to-planets theory. I can't wait to see the rest of the "mismatching" data they are either withholding or still collating. Rosetta is gradually proving devastating for them "

Real science in action I hope Haig!


How dogedly will they hold onto thier leftover icy dirt ball model and by extension "Nebular collapse theory"in the face of never before seen data fromthe 67P mission???

We live in interesting times!

 

[Belz...]

Could you expand on that analysis a little ?

It's been done to death already. You have presented nothing of substance. Until you do, there is nothing to discuss.

 

[LSSBB]

It's been done to death already. You have presented nothing of substance. Until you do, there is nothing to discuss.

+1

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

The Sun, of course. Please calculate how much current goes from it every second in all directions (due to the solar wind). It will be much more than some silly couple of amps, I assure you.

The sun gives out energy yes and the amount of Joules is exactly known. But that could also be thermal/kinetic. In fact all measurements seem to indicate it is. If it were electric current with the sun being one electrode, what is the opposite electrode that completely surrounds the sun? (as the solar wind spreads out spherically)

I don't have one. Do you have any ideas why it shouldn't?

To perform electrolysis of water you need a current and a way to recycle ions. Simple electrochemical cells in high school show this. Put the positive and negative electrode in two different cups of (slightly salt) water and nothing happens. Not until you introduce a salt bridge. So, what mechanism closes the circuit needed for your proposed electrolysis in space? I personally think it is impossible, so there IS no electrolysis in space. You are the one proposing the mechanism, so you are the one that needs to show it is even feasable.

Maybe because the potential difference is too low (due to the small size of the probe), or because it is made of a conductor, so no external electric field can actually get inside and screw up things. Or both. And maybe something else.

And do you consider the possibillity that the something else might be there IS no current? Because the other options are basically handwaving. Delicate electrical equipment made of conductor would not divert the proposed electrical current but rather attract it as it lessens the resistance. And that would destroy the probe.

I think you are mistaken. The amperage in a lightning bolt is about 10⁵ amps. And it is 3.42 A flowing right under my hands right now somewhere inside my laptop. I guess that doesn't mean that I'm riding a lightning, or something.

The amperage running trough a lightning bolt might be higher, but that is because the same amount of charge is displaced in a much shorter time. The amount of Coulomb moved is the same, which is what I wanted to make clear.
And your laptop is specifically isolated so that the current runs trough it circuits and nowhere else. If you were to be subjected to 3.42A without that insulation it would damage things. A better test would be to make another 3.42A circuit and plug it into two random ports of the laptopm then leave it for 30 days running. According to your theories about why spaceprobes are not affected, it is a conductor, so that should not damage it.

 

[Haig]

It's been done to death already. You have presented nothing of substance. Until you do, there is nothing to discuss.

Is this substantial ?

Embers from a Rock Comet

Dec. 12, 2014: December has arrived, and for backyard sky watchers that means one thing: It is time for the annual Geminid meteor shower. Every year in early December, Earth passes through a stream of gravelly, dusty debris from "rock comet" 3200 Phaethon. This causes a meteor shower that sometimes lasts more than two weeks.

Everyone has heard of "comets"--icy visitors from the outer solar system that sprout long tails of gas and dust when they come close to the sun. But what is a rock comet?

A "rock comet" is a new kind of object being discussed by astronomers. It is, essentially, an asteroid that comes very close to the sun--so close that solar heating scorches dusty debris right off its rocky surface. Rock comets could thus grow comet-like tails that produce meteor showers on Earth.

The source of the Geminid meteor shower, 3200 Phaethon, looks a lot like an asteroid. Indeed, it comes from the asteroid belt and its colors resemble the colors of other asteroids in the rocky zone between Mars and Jupiter. Yet 3200 Phaethon has an unusual orbit that brings it deep inside the orbit of Mercury. When this happens, it brightens and sprouts a little tail in mimicry of a comet. A team of astronomers led by Dave Jewitt of UCLA have been monitoring 3200 Phaethon using NASA's twin STEREO probes. They think that intense solar heating blasts the asteroid's rocky surface, causing 3200 Phaethon to shed meteoroids like embers spitting off a log in a roaring campfire.

"Well, I don't know about you, but that is just ... amazing. A rocky asteroid decides it had enough, takes the plunge, gets its rocky dust 'blown' off its rocky surface by scorching heat (!), and like the little rocky caterpillar that it was transforms in a tailed mimicry of an cometary butterfly, sprinkling fairy fireballs and magical meteors over Earth.

My hats of to the astronomers. ***stands up and gives a one-man-ovation***

ps. Its probably just the way this article is popularised, the paper about such things must be far more intricate...it must be."

Those Thunderbolt guys are funny

Then how about this idea from them on Electric Comet 67P dumbbell shape ? my bold

67P, why erosion from the neck?
"It may not be erosion from the neck, it could be accretion to the poles." ???

 

[Haig]

Real science in action I hope Haig!


How dogedly will they hold onto thier leftover icy dirt ball model and by extension "Nebular collapse theory"in the face of never before seen data fromthe 67P mission???

We live in interesting times!

Too right!

Can't wait for mainstream to find more surprises from Electric Comet 67P.... like the JETS JETS JETS as you said a few pages back.

They hold on to their ideas like a dog with a bone

This is good from the Thunderbolts forum...

So why is 67P "singing" at 40-50 millihertz?

"So why is 67P "singing" at 40-50 millihertz?"

Because electron movement is quantized, hence the oscillations. Redshift, as it happens to be, is also quantized. They will not make this connection anytime soon because magnetic and electrical fields only play a minor sideshow role in astronomy and cosmology. EM quantization will not be mentioned in any PRs. Although this is a giant clue for them, 67P "singing" at 40-50 millihertz will not be mentioned in this context--no connection will be made to its singing and quantization.

Start delving into this, too:

from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field_oscillating_amplified_thruster

"The magnetic field oscillating amplified thruster (MOA) (often named as plasma engine by the media) is a versatile electrothermodynamic system, which is able to accelerate nearly every medium to extremely high velocities, thereby generating a high energetic plasma jet in the exhaust.

To do so, MOA utilises a so-called Alfvén wave, a physical principle within Magnetohydrodynamics that was described first in 1942 by the later Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfvén and which states that fluctuating magnetic fields can induce density waves in electric conductive media (e.g. plasma, salty water, etc.). These density waves can reach very high velocities and as the particles inside the medium are coupled to them, the particles are as well accelerated to very high velocities, accordingly reaching very high kinetic energies."

Doesn't the "plasma jet" of the MOA sound strikingly like the coma and tail?

 

[paladin17]

The sun gives out energy yes and the amount of Joules is exactly known. But that could also be thermal/kinetic. In fact all measurements seem to indicate it is. If it were electric current with the sun being one electrode, what is the opposite electrode that completely surrounds the sun? (as the solar wind spreads out spherically)

I don't quite understand what you mean. Solar wind is a stream of charged particles, i.e. it is an electric current.
Of course the net charge that is being carried by the solar wind is probably less than it could have been, since not only there are protons, but also electrons present (and probably other negatively charged particles) etc. But the current is there.
The simpliest verson of what other electrode is is heliospheric boundary.

To perform electrolysis of water you need a current and a way to recycle ions. Simple electrochemical cells in high school show this. Put the positive and negative electrode in two different cups of (slightly salt) water and nothing happens. Not until you introduce a salt bridge. So, what mechanism closes the circuit needed for your proposed electrolysis in space? I personally think it is impossible, so there IS no electrolysis in space. You are the one proposing the mechanism, so you are the one that needs to show it is even feasable.

In principle, ionized particles of the cometary coma can provide a conducting path to perform electrolysis.

And do you consider the possibillity that the something else might be there IS no current? Because the other options are basically handwaving. Delicate electrical equipment made of conductor would not divert the proposed electrical current but rather attract it as it lessens the resistance. And that would destroy the probe.

Alright. Just calculate how many protons are falling on the probe per second, and multiply the acquired number by 10^-19. You'll get the order of the present current in amperes.

 

[tusenfem]

What do you claim is so wrong with the Electric Comet hypothesis??? that btw all of you claim not to understand.

Well let's see:
1. The radial electric field of the Sun
2. The EDM of the surface of the comet
3. The production of water or hydroxyl
4. The complete lack of anything substantial
5. The complete lack of quantification

Just to start with 5 problems

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I don't quite understand what you mean. Solar wind is a stream of charged particles, i.e. it is an electric current.
Of course the net charge that is being carried by the solar wind is probably less than it could have been, since not only there are protons, but also electrons present (and probably other negatively charged particles) etc. But the current is there.
The simpliest verson of what other electrode is is heliospheric boundary.

The solar wind has a net charge of 0. It is a stream of positively and negatively charged particles. In other words it is NOT an electric current.
And what IN the heliospheric boundary is the electrode. Currently it is very vaguely defined as the area where the speed of the solar wind is counteracted by the flow of intergalactic gas. It is NOT a physical object, so again, what there attracts the assumed flow

In principle, ionized particles of the cometary coma can provide a conducting path to perform electrolysis.

That is a nice theory. Got any actual evidence to back it up? Two electrodes, a vacuum chamber and a low density gas irradiated to form radicals is easy to make. Put one electrode in ice and the other in the gas and show it can do electrolysis.

Alright. Just calculate how many protons are falling on the probe per second, and multiply the acquired number by 10^-19. You'll get the order of the present current in amperes.

No, as there is no evidence the solar wind is an electric current. Until that is proven you get the number of protons hitting the probe. No more, no less. And THAT is taken into account in the design. Whereas the EU current is not.

One other question for you, haig, sol88, david talbott at least. Electricity always NEEDS a circuit. It is actually impossible to get a current without it. All of you claim that comets discharge electrons to *something, somewhere somehow*. But what mechanism closes the circuit? And of course this can easily be expanded to the whole EU idea. Where are the counter flows?

 

[tusenfem]

I don't quite understand what you mean. Solar wind is a stream of charged particles, i.e. it is an electric current.
Of course the net charge that is being carried by the solar wind is probably less than it could have been, since not only there are protons, but also electrons present (and probably other negatively charged particles) etc. But the current is there.
The simpliest verson of what other electrode is is heliospheric boundary.

No, this is a common misunderstanding of the EU/thunder bunch. The solar wind is a quasi-neutral (which means that there is neutralitiy on scales larger than the DeBye-scale) and moves outward. Electrons and ions move in the same direction which means that that is ZERO current. Even the electrical engineers at thunderdolts should be able to understand that.

Now, because the sun has a magnetic field, which from afar basically is dipolar, and because the field is frozen into the solar wind plasma (and no Alfven's objection against frozen in does not hold) there needs to be a current sheet, the so called heliospheric current sheet. If the Sun were not rotating, this current would be circular around the Sun, however, because of the rotation and the Parker spiral there is also a slight radial component to the current. THAT is the current that you might use, but note that it is flowing acrosss (i.e. perpendicular) to the magnetic field, because is "created by" or it "is facilitating" the different directions of the SW magnetic field in the northern and the southern hemisphere.

In principle, ionized particles of the cometary coma can provide a conducting path to perform electrolysis.

So now you are envisioning the ions as in the Earth's non-conducting atmosphere where an ionization channel is making the path for lightning from the clouds to the ground.

Unfortunately, this comparison is greatly mistaken, because the comet is in vacuum, the density of the neutrals is low around it, any charged particle can move easily wherever it wants, not being hampered at all by resistance of the, what I think you envision, dense neutral non-conducting atmosphere of the comet.

Furthermore, but that has been pointed out already, there is no water to be electrolyzed in the EC fantasy, the water is created by EDM of the surface and the negative oxygen seems to recombine with high energy solar wind protons.

Alright. Just calculate how many protons are falling on the probe per second, and multiply the acquired number by 10^-19. You'll get the order of the present current in amperes.

Completely wrong, dear paladin17, that is NOT how current is calculated. You keep forgetting that there are also electrons in the solar wind in equal amount to the ions (unless you do the electric sun fantasy, but then the electrons and ions must move in opposite directions, which has never been observed).

Current is calculated as follows (how often do I have to repeat that in E-related threads?):

[Latex]
\vec{J} = \Sigma_k n_k q_k \vec{v}_k
[/Latex]

Where the sigma stands for summation over ALL species k that are present with n the density, q the charge and v the velocitie of species k

(somehow LaTeX is not parsing)

 

[paladin17]

The solar wind has a net charge of 0. It is a stream of positively and negatively charged particles. In other words it is NOT an electric current.

Maybe some measurements were done?
Or is it just an assumption?

And what IN the heliospheric boundary is the electrode. Currently it is very vaguely defined as the area where the speed of the solar wind is counteracted by the flow of intergalactic gas. It is NOT a physical object, so again, what there attracts the assumed flow

I suppose there should be a place (heliopause?) where solar particles bunch up, meeting the cosmic rays, and forming something like an electrode.

That is a nice theory. Got any actual evidence to back it up? Two electrodes, a vacuum chamber and a low density gas irradiated to form radicals is easy to make. Put one electrode in ice and the other in the gas and show it can do electrolysis.

I'm not an experimenter, I don't think that I would do such a thing.

The solar wind is a quasi-neutral (which means that there is neutralitiy on scales larger than the DeBye-scale) and moves outward. Electrons and ions move in the same direction which means that that is ZERO current.

That surely sounds nice, but I want actual measurements.

because of the rotation and the Parker spiral there is also a slight radial component to the current. THAT is the current that you might use, but note that it is flowing acrosss (i.e. perpendicular) to the magnetic field, because is "created by" or it "is facilitating" the different directions of the SW magnetic field in the northern and the southern hemisphere.

I don't understand: why would there be any current, if you're saying that the wind is neutral? Or the spiraling fast solar wind isn't neutral already? If you have a neutral medium, I guess you can rotate it however you want, and there will be no current. Or is that the centrifugal force that is separating the charges?

Furthermore, but that has been pointed out already, there is no water to be electrolyzed in the EC fantasy, the water is created by EDM of the surface and the negative oxygen seems to recombine with high energy solar wind protons.

As we saw earlier, 10^-5 deuterons per each proton emerged during the flares still suggest that there is deuterium in the solar wind. And therefore the enrichment process (whatever it would end up to be) may be applied to acquire even the higher ratio.

I know how the current is calculated, thank you. But I want real proof of the charge neutrality of the interplanetary medium. Or the solar wind.
If there is no such proof, then this hypothesis remains plausible. Actually I'm not sure that even in the quasi-neutral case it would not be plausible, but that's another story.