The Electric Comet theory

[Reality Check]

Tap RC, Tap, you do notice t is still discharging after it has been tapped with a metal object, but my guess is that is dosen't even have to be metal. It just needs a disturbance to initiate. You did see some of the blocks self discharge under the influence of the electron beam?

Yes: Tap Sol88 and they state that it is metal so your guess is wring.

My point is the rock (comet) acquires the space charge that surrounds it much like the block of acrylic acquires the charge of the space charge it was in (the beam), after it was removed from the region of high space charge it was ready, willing and able to discharge back to the surrounding "air" all it needed was a tap to disrupt the internal structure and whamo!! An electron avalanche!

You are wrong in oh so many ways :

• "space charge" is nonsense.
• comets are not rocks: your ignorance extends to that you do not know that 0.6 g/cc (comet) is not 3.0 g/cc (rocks) .
• The block of acrylic acquires the charge of the elecrons that are fired into it.

What about if we stick a Meteorite in a linac and the immerse it in a plasma stream, like a Hall effect thruster just to see what happens!!

Would the Rock discharge you think?

No. It is obvious that that is physically impossible.

1. There is no place to discarge to unless you taped the rock with a metal electrode.
2. There is no dielectric material to breakdown to create a discharge.

Of course this is moot since is would be quite idiotic to think that the EC idea is correct. See The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!

 

[Reality Check]

ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: missing water non-prediction

All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page.

A failed non-prediction about water
Thunderbolt prediction:

Thornhill: An abundance of water on or below the surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption of the "dirty snowball" hypothesis) is unlikely.

This is not a prediction: Just how much is an "abundance"?
In science an abundance is a ratio of something in a given environment. So any water measured is an abundance of water and amy water measured means that the prediciton fails.

ThunderBolts "confirmed" result:

The explosion removed many thousands of tons of material. But prior to impact, the calculated "water" output was 550 pounds per second; and not long after the impact, the calculated output was, once again, 550 pounds per second (See picture above regarding the return to previous level). So despite the impressive explosion, the envisioned sub-surface water refused to reveal itself. By NASA's own calculations, therefore, Deep Impact has only made matters worse for standard theory.
see [ 2005 July 16]

Thornhill is wrong. What he is stating is that the output of water eventually returned to what it was before the impact. That is not a measurement of the amount of water on or under the surface.

What was measured was an abundance of water.
"Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WP
Thus the water content of the ejected material from Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
That material was ejected from the surface and from below the surface.

 

[Reality Check]

ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Comet breakup

All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page.

Comet breakup
Thunderbolt prediction:

Thornhill: So there is some small chance that astronomers will be surprised to see the comet split apart, if the projectile reaches the surface of the comet and results in an intense arc

Tempel 1 did not break up so it is wrong to have this prediction on a confirmed prediction page.

 

[Reality Check]

ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Sheath around impactor

All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page.

Sheath around impactor
Thunderbolt prediction:

Thornhill: The impactor may form a sheath around it as it enters the coma, becoming a "comet within a comet". The plasma sheath could interfere with communications in the same way as experienced by the Space Shuttle during reentry

ThunderBolts "confirmed result":

Finally, why were there no images returned from the impactor seconds before impact? The lower right image is the last from the impactor camera. Thornhill predicted an electrical flash before impact. Yesterday's TPOD reported the surprise expressed by NASA's expert on high-velocity impacts, Peter Schultz, when two flashes were seen. The lack of images in the last few seconds would be explained simply if the impactor was hit by a "cometary lightning bolt" seconds before contact. The "whiteout" seen in the lower right quadrant indicates significant electrical discharging near the impact point. Data from the communications team and the flyby spacecraft cameras should decide the issue. see [ 2005 July 08]

This seems to be a quote from a web page that no longer exists at the linked location.


No

• followup to decide the issue,
• citations to literature,
• support for their assertion that there was a "lack of images in the last few seconds",
• no evidence for a plasma sheath.

Thus the prediction failed.

 

[Reality Check]

ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: System failure

All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page.

System failure
Thunderbolt prediction:

Thornhill: Internal electrical stress may short out the electronics on board the impactor before impact. That could compromise the guidance system and the success of the mission.

ThunderBolts "confirmed result":

See previous observation.
see [ 2005 July 08]

There is no previous observation giving evidence of any problems with the electronics on board or the guidance system.

Thus the prediction failed.

 

[Reality Check]

ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Water in coma

All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page.

Water in coma
Thunderbolt prediction:

Thornhill: It is advisable that investigators look at water abundances both close to the nucleus and in the far coma to see to what extent water is being formed away from the nucleus by the combination of negative oxygen ions with protons from the solar wind.

Predictions are meant to differentiate between different models. If multiple models make the same prediction then the success of the prediction is support for all of the models.
The standard models also have the combination of negative oxygen ions (formed by the disassociation of oxygen molecules by sunlight) with protons from the solar wind. The impact energy would also split up oxygen molecules.

ThunderBolts "confirmed result":

Readings of the relative abundance of OH should drop in the immediate wake of impact, while in the days after the impact abundances of OH should rise. Though this is inconceivable under the standard model, preliminary data released does suggest this pattern.
see [ 2005 July 19]

A prediction inside the results? Not good practice as it suggests that they made the prediction after getting the results.

No citations to the literature. No analysis of the scientific data.

Thus no confirmation.

 

[Reality Check]

Hartley 2 plumes contain snowballs of frozen water and CO2

Another nail in the EC coffin.
A comet creates its own snowstorm!

NASA has just released new results and images from the EPOXI spacecraft’s visit to the comet Hartley 2 from November 4… and like the previous ones, these are absolutely stunning jaw-droppers. What scientists have found is that the comet’s solid nucleus is sitting in the middle of a veritable snowstorm!

Wow! Most of those dots are not stars: they are actual snowballs, frozen matter that has been ejected by the comet itself! They range in size from a few centimeters to a few dozen across, so they really are about the size of snowballs you’d use in a snowball fight… or to make a snowman. But I wouldn’t recommend it: a lot of that material is not frozen water, it’s actually frozen carbon dioxide, or dry ice.

According to the EC fantasy, comets are rocks with no water or CO2. So where are those chunks of CO2 and water coming from?

Sol88?
Haig?

My guess is that the EC people will say CO2 and water from physically impossible electrical discharges is magically being packed together into snowballs (maybe by pixies and elves ?)

 

[ben m]

Another nail in the EC coffin.
A comet creates its own snowstorm!

Gorgeous. This must be the best space photography since Cassini.

Some science facts contra the EU/PCers:

a) The comet casts a shadow on its ejecta. Like we said, the ejecta are not glowing. They're just stuff reflecting some sunlight.

b) All of the comet's bright spots are on the comet's daylit side. There are no bright spots in the shadow. Like we said: the bright spots are not glowing, they're not discharges or sparks or plasma. They're just stuff that can reflect sunlight.

 

[Zeuzzz]

They're just stuff that can reflect sunlight.

Your pedantry is quite a spectacle. Sometimes I find it hard to tell when your being either sarcastic or acerbic.

Define "stuff". And define how the "stuff" has such properties, and how common this "stuff" is involved in the makeup of comets.

Anything that reflects photons is either luminous (reflecting light), or glows (produces its own light), to differing extents.

Varying luminances (the physical measure of the intensity of light) gives rise to different brightness values. Brightness, however, is a subjective measure due to it being only the perceived amount of light emanating from an object. People often presume that luminance and brightness are directly proportional, however the apparent brightness of objects is not entirely dependent upon the amount of light received from them.

The perception of the brightness of objects lies more with the luminance of adjacent objects and backgrounds than the actual luminance of the object. Think its called simultaneous brightness contrast or something. Thus the brightness seen could be more an result of the properties surrounding plasma sheath, E/B fields, potential differences and double layers than mere reflection.

A simple explanation for the comet using this electrical theory is that the coma and tail are the plasma sheath surrounding the nucleus and glowing in normal glow mode, and the jets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus.

Using the usual PC style extrapolation from laboratory tests to astrophysics you can quite clearly see that this effect is more than plausible.

Tribo-Induced Discharge Luminescence of Possible Astrophysical Interest - Physica Scripta - Volume 20, Number 5-6

New spectrographic observations have been made on the flashes of light appearing in burning iron flakes produced in a grinding wheel. By using slit-less grating spectrographs with a long collimator and short camera, well-defined low dispersion spectra have been obtained of individual flashes of light. From a study of carbon steel, several emission bands and lines have been found. In addition to the FeO bands observed before, bands of C2, CN, CH and N2 as well as a few ultraviolet Fe I atomic lines have been recorded. These emission features are superimposed with low contrast (except in the ultraviolet) on the continuous emission spectrum.

Attention is drawn to earlier results that electric charges appear sometimes in burning particles, and particularly when a particle splits into two or more parts. The emission features seem therefore to be due, at least partly, to a tribo-induced discharge luminescence. Effects of similar kind may contribute to the light emission of meteors and comets and perhaps also to the light of some other celestial objects.

(btw I fully disagree with most "electric comet" theories [so far I have not seen any that could even be a complete theory] but I still like to point out the general idea still holds far more credence than most think, even if the specifics are still lacking)

 

[Reality Check]

Your pedantry is quite a spectacle. Sometimes I find it hard to tell when your being either sarcastic or acerbic.

Define "stuff". And define how the "stuff" has such properties, and how common this "stuff" is involved in the makeup of comets.

ben_m's post is quite clear: "stuff" is any substance that can reflect light. If you do not know the composition of comets then that "stuff" includes:

• water
• carbon dioxide
• methane
• dust
• etc.

A simple explanation for the comet using this electrical theory is that the coma and tail are the plasma sheath surrounding the nucleus and glowing in normal glow mode, and the jets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus.

A simple explanation of the EC idea is that it is physically impossible. See The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!

Using the usual PC style extrapolation from laboratory tests to astrophysics you can quite clearly see that this effect is more than plausible.

Using the usual PC style extrapolation from laboratory tests to astrophysics you can see that the EC idea is physically impossible:
See The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!

Tribo-Induced Discharge Luminescence of Possible Astrophysical Interest - Physica Scripta - Volume 20, Number 5-6

No access to the full paper (please post it if you have one) but the abstract does not support the debunked EC idea.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboluminescence
It looks like the author is speculating that Fe particles in comet coma may collide and cause triboluminescence.

(btw I fully disagree with most "electric comet" theories [so far I have not seen any that could even be a complete theory] but I still like to point out the general idea still holds far more credence than most think, even if the specifics are still lacking)

BTW - you should disagree with all "electric comet" theories because the general idea is ridiculous:

• comets are not rocky bodies (their densities are too small).
• electrical discharges are physically impossible because there is no dielectric material to breakdown.

I have not seen any "electric comet" theories that are much more than fantasy.

 

[Haig]

I have not seen any "electric comet" theories that are much more than fantasy.

Then your not really trying RC ;-)

CRATERS
For mainstream, craters only included two possible causative agents: volcanism, or impact. When the cause of the craters on comets or asteroids is considered it only leaves impact as the assumed cause.

Tempel 1 and Hartley 2http://epoxi.umd.edu/3gallery/20101118_AHearn3.shtml
http://epoxi.umd.edu/3gallery/images/20101118_AHearn3.jpg

nine asteroids and four comets http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100726.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/1007/asteroidscomets_lakdawalla_big.jpg

All I see with asteroids and comets are lumps of rocks in various shapes and sizes, pock-marked with craters. Most are circular! What are the odds of that?

Random impacts should give a random angle of impact. Where are all the glancing blows and oblique craters?

Craters formed by the arcs are most often circular because electromagnetic forces cause them to maintain right angles to the impact zone.
Since two or more filaments rotate around the arc axis, it can behave like a drill, excavating steep side walls and "pinching" a rolled rim. Often, the filaments will leave behind a central peak. Minerals in the crater will be electrically heated, scorched, and melted.

This piece, on thunderbolts, makes a strong case for the electrical cause of most (not all) crater features that are not easily associated with volcanic or impact causes in the solar system and that includes the ones on comets and asteroids.

The Craters Are Electric By Michael Goodspeed
On every solid body in space, we have observed craters lacking any conventional explanation. In fact, on close observation, many craters show distinct features that are not associated with volcanic or impact craters, but are easily created by electric arcs in the laboratory and by electric discharge machining (EDM)
http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/120707electriccraters.htm

All comet nuclei that have been directly observed have proven to be rocky with no visible water present on the surface. The so-called "jets" of comets are observed to be highly collimated. The dust of comets is observed to be extremely fine. Samples of comet dust show particles that have undergone intense heating. The impact excavation of Tempel1 showed H2O spectra far below that required by the "dirty snowball model". These observations refute the standard theory of comets being a dirty snowball ejecting sub-surface water ice and dust via sublimation. No in situ experiment has ever demonstrated how photodissociation can occur at the rates assumed by cometary models.

Comets are also observed to emit x-rays and have filamentary tails. This is unexplained by the standard model, yet these observations were predicted by cosmologists that took electric forces into account. Supporting articles from a wide range of sources can be found here.
• All comets observed falling into the Sun or passing very near the Sun have subsequently been followed by coronal mass ejections, some of which actually "disconnected" the tails of comets from the nucleus. This is not explained at all by the idea a comet is a dirty snowball, yet this is well explained by electric cosmology’s view of comets. Also, comets have observed to brighten at distances too far from the Sun to possibly be attributed to sublimating ice. This too is explained well by electric cosmology’s view of comets.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011215.html

 

[tusenfem]

Okay, Haig, the please work it out how the EDM works on a comet, how much the charging needs to be, how much water is produced by this EDM to create the observed water (also a EC prediction) and if the surface of the comet is negatively charged (yes it will be charged, indeed, this is even taken into account in the Rosetta lander Philae). Never anything worked out comes from thunderbloats, it's always pretty pictures, never anything concrete.

Maybe you should read an excellent introductory book on Comets: K. S. Krishna Swamy, Physics of Comets, 3rd edition, 2010, then maybe you will really know what the mainstream model is, instead of getting this information of delusional thunderdolts websites and michael suede blogs.

X-rays are easily explained in comets (see the excellent Tim Thompson post)
Filamentary tails: why would mainstream not expect that?
There is no link between comets and CMEs, the disconnection of a tail is very well explained by mainstream physics and is basically the same kind of process that his happening in every planetary magnetotail.

 

[Reality Check]

CRATERS
...
All I see with asteroids and comets are lumps of rocks in various shapes and sizes, pock-marked with craters. Most are circular! What are the odds of that?

Random impacts should give a random angle of impact. Where are all the glancing blows and oblique craters?

Look at any body with craters, e.g. the Moon (or for that matter the Earth!).
Notice that most craters are circular! What are the odds of that?

I did not know but I at least can Google and learn why: Are impact craters always circular?

Craters formed by the arcs are most often circular because The Craters Are Electric By Michael Goodspeed
On every solid body in space, we have observed craters lacking any conventional explanation. In fact, on close observation, many craters show distinct features that are not associated with volcanic or impact craters, but are easily created by electric arcs in the laboratory and by electric discharge machining (EDM)
http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/120707electriccraters.htm

Oh, the gullibility of citing a crank web site .

But then you (like Sol88) are unable to grasp the simple fact that the measured density of comets (~0.6 g/cc) means that the EC idea is debunked (asteroids have measured densities of ~3.0 g/cc) . So maybe it is not surprising that you are taken in by such simple non-science.

And the inability to read is obvious:
The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!

EC universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.(but according to solrey EDM does not mean EDM in the EC universe!).
Real universe:
Start with Tim Thompson's posts about this

• Electric Comets I
• Electric Comets II: References
• Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).

Then look at

• The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.
• EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
• No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
• No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
• Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.

 

[Reality Check]

The ignorance of the rest of the post from the author is abysmal and you are ill advised to rely on a obvious, ignorant crank for your science.
Try learning some science for yourself instead.

All comet nuclei that have been directly observed have proven to be rocky with no visible water present on the surface.

That is a lie: Most comet nuclei that have been directly observed have proven to be a mixture of rocky and volitile materials (water, CO2, methane, etc.)
Water ice was found on the surface of Tempel 1.

The so-called "jets" of comets are observed to be highly collimated.

As expected in the mainstream model.

The dust of comets is observed to be extremely fine.

As expected in the mainstream model.

Samples of comet dust show particles that have undergone intense heating.

As explained in the mainstream model. The Stardust results were a surprise 4 years ago since they showed that the dust formed in the inner solar system.

The impact excavation of Tempel1 showed H2O spectra far below that required by the "dirty snowball model". These observations refute the standard theory of comets being a dirty snowball ejecting sub-surface water ice and dust via sublimation.

Half right - that is why Tempel 1 is sometimes decribed as a icy dustball.

But the author is ignorant:

• the "dirty snowball model" does not state that comets are mostly ice. All it states is that a comet has enough ice to sublimate to form an observable coma and tail.
  Comets are expected to have on average more ice than rock.
• the Tempel 1 observations do not refute the scientific evidence for the origin of comet coma and tails.

The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!

Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
"Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WP
Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.

No in situ experiment has ever demonstrated how photodissociation can occur at the rates assumed by cometary models.

How dumb of the author: Of course no one has sent experimental apparatus to land on a comet and do exactly what is observed to happen on a comet!
There is photodissociation of molecules by solar radiation: How does a comet work?

But I think that the author is

• ignorant of what in situ means and
• confusing photodissociation with sublimination. In that case they are ignorant of many experiments over decades that have explored both photodissociation with sublimination. They should read an undergraduate physics textbook.

Haig: Have you noticed that thes EC cranks are all about extending laboratory physics to larger scales when it comes to their fantasies. But when scientists do the same thing in mainstream science, they are wrong?

 

[Reality Check]

ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Multiple craters

All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page.

Multiple craters
Thunderbolt prediction:

Thornhill: If the energy is distributed over several flashes, more than one crater on the comet nucleus could result - in addition to any impact crater.

The energy was not "distributed over several flashes" so this prediction is moot.
Why is it on the confirmed prediction page?

 

[Reality Check]

ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Fine dust

All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page.

Fine dust
Thunderbolt prediction:

Thornhill: The primary distinction between a comet and an asteroid is that, due to its elliptical orbit, electrical arcing and "electrostatic cleaning" will clean the nucleus' surface, leaving little or no dust or debris on it.

Where is the predcition about the size of the dust particles?

Thunderbolt confirmed prediction:

Both the volume of dust and its extraordinarily fine texture have created mysteries for cometologists. The ejected dust appears to be as fine as talcum powder. In no sense was this expected. But it is characteristic of "cathode sputtering", a process used industrially to create super-fine deposits or coatings from cathode materials.
see [ 2006 Febrary 17]

No mystery to cometologists, just a surprise for Tempel 1 to be so fluffy.

But lets be charitable: At last a prediction that sort of matches the result.

 

[Reality Check]

ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Surface geology

All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page.
Surface geology
Thunderbolt prediction:

Thornhill: The model predicts a sculpted surface, distinguished by sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges - the opposite of the softened relief expected of a sublimating "dirty snowball". (A chunk of ice melting in the Sun loses its sharp relief, just like a scoop of melting ice cream.)

This prediction just displays Thornhill's ignorance.
The standard model is not an icecream melting in the Sun. The sublimination occurs at spots on the surface of the nucleus thus forming jets. It is not from the entire surface. The surface is expected to have "sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges".

Thunderbolt confirmed prediction:

...makes an observation in a NASA release on Deep Impact all the more noteworthy: "The image [of the nucleus] reveals topographic features, including ridges, scalloped edges and possibly impact craters formed long ago". see [ 2005 July 08]

A result from a press release !
The quote is from a caption on a single image of one side of Temple 1.

The science is:
The shape, topography, and geology of Tempel 1 from Deep Impact observations

Deep Impact images of the nucleus of Comet Tempel 1 reveal pervasive layering, possible impact craters, flows with smooth upper surfaces, and erosional stripping of material. There are at least 3 layers 50–200 m thick that appear to extend deep into the nucleus, and several layers 1–20 m thick that parallel the surface and are being eroded laterally. Circular depressions show geographical variation in their forms and suggest
differences in erosion rates or style over scales >1 km. The stratigraphic arrangement of these features suggests that the comet experienced substantial periods of little erosion. Smooth surfaces trending downslope suggest some form of eruption of materials from this highly porous object. The Deep Impact images show that the nucleus of Tempel 1 cannot be modeled simply as either an onion-layer or rubble pile structure.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I dont really know what im arguing about here. Seems like the EU lot have pretty much described the basics of standard comet theory but by focussing on the electrical and plasma aspects somehow they have, by fiat, come up with an amazing new model different to standard ones. Trouble is its basically the standard model just with the mechanics, gravity and chemistry left out. Hell I dont even know what the electrical and plasma properties are they keep talking about.

Plasma sheath. At what voltage? What debye length? Density? Structure?

Electric field. The magniude? The shape? The reason for there to be sufficient pd to create it?

Double layer. What current system sustains it?

Travelling through a E/B field and gaining a net charge. Of what magnitude? Field generated from what [the sun?] Why has such a substantial uniform field not been detected? Does it gain charge from the photoelectric effect like satelites? Or due to absolute charging? Differential charging? [differential is more likely to create a net charge and (continuous) discharge depending on the capacitance, and pd being traversed]

Ummm. Thats why I think this idea is great. Theres no specifics so you can never disprove it.

... seriously though, are there answers to any of those q's?

 

[Reality Check]

I dont really know what im arguing about here. Seems like the EU lot have pretty much described the basics of standard comet theory but by focussing on the electrical and plasma aspects somehow they have, by fiat, come up with an amazing new model different to standard ones. Trouble is its basically the standard model just with the mechanics, gravity and chemistry left out. Hell I dont even know what the electrical and plasma properties are they keep talking about.
...
... seriously though, are there answers to any of those q's?

I agree.
The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked! shows that there is no argument.

The EU lot have a fantasy about comets that is not backed up by evidence and betrays a certain level of ignorance of physics.
They have no new model. They have an idea with electromagnetism, mechanics, gravity and chemistry left out.

Thus the answer to your serious question is: No answers from the EC lot.
Just read this thread !

 

[Dancing David]

Another nail in the EC coffin.
A comet creates its own snowstorm!


According to the EC fantasy, comets are rocks with no water or CO2. So where are those chunks of CO2 and water coming from?

Sol88?
Haig?

My guess is that the EC people will say CO2 and water from physically impossible electrical discharges is magically being packed together into snowballs (maybe by pixies and elves ?)

Cool, the source of the meteoric dust streams of meteor showers!