Good morning again, Haig.
Gezz someone doesn't understand it has to be a
charged rock !
The Electric Comet PDF
A comet on an elongated orbit spends most of its time far from the Sun and acquires a charge in balance with the voltage at that distance. But when a comet speeds inward for a quick spin around the Sun, the voltage of the comet becomes increasingly out of balance with that nearer the Sun—a situation leading to high-energy discharge.
Thanks for this.
Assuming Talbott&Thornhill (2006) is indeed a primary source re the ech^, and assuming that Thornhill (2007) - which is behind a paywall - does not contradict this, comets *having to be* charged is a derivation, or prediction, not a core assumption (of course, in the ech, comets do *have to be* rocks).
And this passage is a kinda/sorta derivation.
Let's rephrase the main part of this derivation, to make it more consistent with the two key ech assumptions (if you feel this re-statement is in error in any significant way, please say so, and provide suggestions to correct it):
"
A homogeneous rock in an approximately elliptical orbit around the Sun spends most of its time near aphelion and acquires a charge that is in equilibrium with the radial, weak, Sun-centered electric field at that distance. But as such a homogeneous rock moves towards perihelion, the charge it had near aphelion becomes increasingly out of equilibrium with the radial, weak, Sun-centered electric field ..."
This derivation/conclusion is open to questioning and challenge; better though, it is much closer to being objective - and independently verifiable - than the original.
For example, we can ask questions like "
for realistic weak, radial, Sun-centered electric fields, how long would it take a homogeneous rock to acquire a charge that is in equilibrium with the field?" That's too broad and too ambiguous, of course, but is easily narrowed and tightened; e.g. "
how long" could be expressed as something like "
what range of duration would be characteristic?", and "
a homogeneous rock" could be constrained by postulating some characteristic composition and size.
However, there's something rather important that's missing; namely, the interplanetary medium, or the solar wind.
Given that the electrical theorists who are the (apparent) authors/creators of the ech are very big on plasmas, it might be reasonable to assume - in the absence of something in a primary source! - that the ech includes the solar wind.
If so, then our questions about the derivation can be modified somewhat; e.g. "
for realistic weak, radial, Sun-centered electric fields, and a realistic interplanetary medium, how long would it take a homogeneous rock to acquire a charge that is in equilibrium with the field?"
Are you OK with this (so far)?
^ despite the fact that it refers to the "Electric Comet Model", a characterization which David Talbott himself admits is incorrect
I was quoted on-line £108 / $165 / Euro 138 ... that's way too high for what is (imho) only a mainstream magnetic version of the electric comet hypothesis but without naming a plasma sheath, double layers, charge or mentioning too much about electric effects.
) ... Brrr Little Ice Age
!
!