The Electric Comet theory

solrey · Aug 23, 2009

deirendopa,
If you call nearly 40 hours of sanding with 10 to go fun, yeah, it's reeeaaaallll fun.

Nah, I love it. Grandpa was a wood worker, it's in the blood.

Back OT. deirendopa said

The aspect that I am most curious about, now, is why comets? I mean, why do comets have comas (and tails), but other solar system bodies do not?

Ah, the inner planets do have "comas" (magnetosphere's) and tails.
Go here for a diagram. The article describes some of the data MESSENGER collected from Mercury, particularly the surface sputtering and magnetic tornado's, but it's the diagram I'd like to direct your attention to. The structure is very similar to the Earth's magnetosphere, Venus too, even Mars, albeit very weak...and comets as well.

All of the inner planets also have "stringy tails" nearly stretching all the way to the next planets orbital distance. The inner planets aren't experiencing rapid changes in their electric environment like comets do, but they receive a steady flow of charged particles from the Sun nonetheless, so they just remain in a non-luminescent state. Essentially they receive a, mostly, steady discharge from the Sun.

nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/multimedia/magnetic_tornadoes.html

I only pointed out the magnetron glow discharge because that would be the type of discharge mostly experienced, I was merely identifying the specific type of discharge. The strength and enhancement of the magnetic field doesn't really matter, that will fluctuate somewhat anyway.
The glow doesn't have to be bright and blinding, it can be a soft, neon-like glow as well. So the effect of the glow from discharge may or may not be "washed out" by reflection.

tusenfem, I'm doing my best with the time I have, trying to describe a very complicated, multifaceted process, sorry if it's not quite adequate.

What the EM field data depicts is two "stacked" DL's with a ring current just inside the inner DL. The outer DL at R1, the inner DL at R2, the ring current is that 10,000 Km thick current layer 25,000 Km downstream of R2. Multiple DL's and/or ring currents are not uncommon. That data actually makes the case for the EC even stronger, imo.
The Earth has strong ring currents, the "radiation belts", comets ring currents, are much weaker so they don't produce radiation like the Earth's. I wouldn't be surprised, not saying there is for sure, if there were also a third DL within a few hundred Km of the surface, which wouldn't be detected anyways unless a probe passed within that distance. The DL's dissipate and moderate the discharge current impinging on the surface. There is still a voltage potential between the surface and DL's. Even on Earth, there is a voltage potential of 100v/m @ sea level, even though the measured current of "flux transfer events" into the magnetosphere are on the order of hundreds of thousands of volts.

I think I should clear up the apparent confusion of what a discharge is. It seems that some of you good folks are stuck on the dramatic arc/spark type of discharge. That's what most are familiar with. But a discharge can be slow and steady as well, typically considered an electric current...as in a battery. A battery discharges slowly producing a steady electric current. That's pretty much a comet, it's essentially like those new capacitor batteries being developed, discharging at a mostly steady rate, but capable of rapid discharge as well.

tusenfem · Aug 23, 2009

solrey said:
tusenfem, I'm doing my best with the time I have, trying to describe a very complicated, multifaceted process, sorry if it's not quite adequate.

What the EM field data depicts is two "stacked" DL's with a ring current just inside the inner DL. The outer DL at R1, the inner DL at R2, the ring current is that 10,000 Km thick current layer 25,000 Km downstream of R2. Multiple DL's and/or ring currents are not uncommon. That data actually makes the case for the EC even stronger, imo.
The Earth has strong ring currents, the "radiation belts", comets ring currents, are much weaker so they don't produce radiation like the Earth's. I wouldn't be surprised, not saying there is for sure, if there were also a third DL within a few hundred Km of the surface, which wouldn't be detected anyways unless a probe passed within that distance. The DL's dissipate and moderate the discharge current impinging on the surface. There is still a voltage potential between the surface and DL's. Even on Earth, there is a voltage potential of 100v/m @ sea level, even though the measured current of "flux transfer events" into the magnetosphere are on the order of hundreds of thousands of volts.

That does not make ANY sense at all in DL talk, stacked double layers do not have a strong electric field gradient in between them, see e.g. stairstep double layers, in which it is shown that strong voltage drops in a plasma column split itself up into several DLs.

Why not make a picture to explain it. What kind of double layers are there? the ones carrying a current or the one on the boundary of two different plasmas?

You cannot use the clear sky electric field of the Earth, because the atmosphere is a very good insulator, whereas at a comet there is a plasma. Apples and oranges. Lots of word but nothing substantial.

solrey · Aug 23, 2009

You cannot use the clear sky electric field of the Earth, because the atmosphere is a very good insulator, whereas at a comet there is a plasma. Apples and oranges. Lots of word but nothing substantial.

It's a valid comparison, actually, from the perspective of comparing how that voltage potential is transferred to the surface in vastly different environments. On Earth, the atmosphere provides enough insulation to prevent surface sputtering, erosion and cratering, while still holding a 100v/m potential. Mercury, with a much thinner, atmosphere, does experience sputtering and "flux transfer events" on the surface. The difference on a Comet, as you so astutely note, is that the "atmosphere" is a conductive plasma which allows the discharge current to focus, or impinge, on the surface, relatively unhindered, other than the dissipation provided by the DL's. The purpose of my comparisons is to demonstrate the same processes manifesting in three different ways, one mostly at "rest" (Earth), one in a non-luminous discharge state (Mercury), the last in the glow discharge state (comet). Deirendopa had asked why planets don't act like comets, and I was demonstrating that they do, just in a less energetic manner, therefore it's not obvious.

That does not make ANY sense at all in DL talk, stacked double layers do not have a strong electric field gradient in between them, see e.g. stairstep double layers, in which it is shown that strong voltage drops in a plasma column split itself up into several DLs.

Get ready, here comes "check"...

Nagendra Singh

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and CSPAR, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA

Kalyan Arcot

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and CSPAR, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA

B. E. Wells

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and CSPAR, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA

Using a 2.5-D parallel particle-in-cell simulation of a plasma of long length parallel to an ambient magnetic field Bo, we study the processes involved in determining the distribution of an applied electric potential drop parallel to Bo. The simulated plasma consists of both hot and cold plasmas of the magnetospheric and ionospheric origins, respectively. The former plasma is at a higher positive potential with respect to the latter, and thus the simulation results are relevant to the auroral downward current regions. The parallel processing enables us to simulate a long system with the magnetic field-aligned dimension L z ∼ 8192 λ do, where λ do is the plasma Debye length. We find that when the initially empty simulation box accumulates sufficient plasma supplied from hot plasma from the top and cold plasma from the bottom, a density cavity forms at the interface between the hot and cold plasmas. A part of the applied potential drop occurs in the cavity as a double layer (DL), while the rest of it as ambipolar fields supported by the density gradient in the hot plasma density on the high-potential side (HPS) of the DL. The DL propagates upward. The HPS of the DL is rich in large-amplitude electron holes. At later times in the evolution of plasma and fields as the DL reaches the top boundary, we find that a major part of the applied potential is distributed over long distances giving only a weak ambipolar type of parallel electric fields. Then again the distributed potential evolves into localized potential drops like in a stack of multiple double layers. The double layers and associated cavities emerge from low-frequency and long-wavelength oscillations in the presence of very hot ions. Parallel currents in the plasma seem to be the only source of free energy for driving the oscillations. We report the evolution of the electron velocity distribution functions as the potential distribution evolves.

Received 8 July 2008; accepted 8 December 2008; published 19 March 2009.

Citation: Singh, N., K. Arcot, and B. E. Wells (2009), Parallel electric fields in mixing hot and cold plasmas in the auroral downward current region: Double layers and ambipolar fields, J. Geophys. Res., 114, A03209, doi:10.1029/2008JA013591.

So, it would be nice if an EC proponent would come with a real model.

...and "mate".

Next?

solrey · Aug 23, 2009

RealityCheck...Howdy

Didn't want to forget your question.

How does the EC idea explain that jets on the Tempel 1 nucleus are correlated with "bright spots" on the nucleus that are measured to be ice?

I think I mentioned previously, H₂O is an expected electro-chemical reaction by-product, CO2 as well, so when the discharge subsides, any of those gases present at that time, would condense on the surface as thin deposits of ice in the vicinity of discharge/reaction activity. Otherwise, during discharge reactions, the H₂O breaks down to OH in another reaction. I believe all they detected were three small patches of thin ice layers covering a mere .026% of the surface. That does fit this scenario. The previous discharge activity reinforces local crustal magnetic fields in those conductive areas of the surface so the next time around the new discharge events are more likely to occur in or around those same areas. It's pretty much expected that new discharge activity would happen where previous discharge events deposited thin layers of water and carbon dioxide ice.
It's electrostatic deposition, like powder coating or electroplating.
Etching and erosion are what we see as the most obvious aspect of discharge on comets, and the most discussed, but deposition occurs at times as well.
BTW, there are a number of alkaline, or base, minerals that will produce H₂O when reacting with an acid, the H⁺, in the solar plasma stream. The next reaction that would occur is when that water then reacts with free electrons, liberated from the surface, within the electric field of the discharge current. Mineral salts in the dust and flakes etched from the surface are probably involved in this reaction. The cathode reaction is:
2H₂O + 2e^- -> 2OH^- + H₂

The further from the nucleus, the OH^- ions pick up free electrons producing more neutral OH molecules with distance from the surface. I believe that is what has been detected.
:jaw-dropp

Reality Check · Aug 23, 2009

Some comets that should be asteroids according to EC

EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity below a minimum value will be asteroids (not comets).

Real universe: There are bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity below a minimum value that are comets.
Star with the observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro).

The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows that there are 12 cataloged comets with an eccentricity < 0.17.

This is not as impressive a flaw in the EC idea as the 173,583 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17 that should be comets according to EC. The list does include the rather interesting comet 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann whose variation in brightness is in itself a flaw in EC.

Reality Check · Aug 23, 2009

solrey said:
RealityCheck...Howdy

Didn't want to forget your question.
...snip...

solrey...Howdy

Pretty much what I expected - assertions but not much science :jaw-dropp

. Can you give citations to the papers that show that the "discharges" produce water from cometary rock?

The scenerio also fits the really simple science of water already being present.

But let us accept that there is something (EDM/coronal discharges/DL discharges/pixies?/etc.) creating water from rock. This leads to a really easy to answer question - how can we detect this sometihng?

Does it produce X-rays?
(Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays)
Does it produce jets?
(The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets)
Where are the coomponents of the process?
(EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!)
Is this something visble?
(No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.)
How does this something work without heating up the surface?
(No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.)

So far we have a something that is invisible in the spectra that comet nuclei have been observed in.

Reality Check · Aug 23, 2009

Is there an EC explantion for the birghtness changes in 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann

Another problem with EC's basically external mechanism for the creation of the cometary coma and tail is that it means that it probably cannot account for sudden changes in comet brightness.
I would be interested in citations to the actual theory that accounts for this (even to a certain book advertisement site).

29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann

The comet is unusual in that while normally hovering at around 16th magnitude, it suddenly undergoes an outburst. This causes the comet to brighten by 1 to 4 magnitudes.[3] This happens with a frequency of 7.3 outbursts per year,[3] fading within a week or two. The magnitude of the comet has been known to vary from 19th magnitude to 9th magnitude, a ten thousand-fold increase in brightness, during its brightest outbursts. Highly changing surface processes are suspected to be responsible for the observed behavior.[3]

And from reference 3
"A continuous follow-up of Centaurs, and dormant comets: looking for cometary activity."

Such value is almost twice than the previously thought. SW1 outbursts are typically characterized by the sudden increase of 1 to 4 magnitudes in the brightness of the object. We have found no clear periodicity in the outburst production. Highly changing surface processes (perhaps associated with transition from amorphous to crystalline water ice) are suspected to be responsible for the observed behavior.

You may have access to this paper - Cometary outbursts - search of probable mechanisms - case of 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1

Cometary outbursts, sudden increases in luminosity have not been clearly explained so far and their source is still a mystery. Various possible mechanisms as a source of cometary outbursts at large distances from the Sun have been considered. It has been stated that plausible mechanisms are the polymerization of HCN and the amorphous water ice transformation combined with electrostatic destruction of cometary grains in the head of the comet. The calculations have been carried out for a large range of cometary parameters and it has been shown that the proposed scenario of the outburst gives a jump in the comet brightness which is consistent with the real jump observed during the 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1 outbursts.

Reality Check · Aug 23, 2009

solrey said:
Hi all. First post here. What fun, mind if I jump in?
First...EDM. EDM is the erosion or etching of an electrode. It could be a rapid, dramatic process, or a slow, steady process. Spark machining is used on very hard materials in industrial manufacturing processes. The slow erosion of the electrodes in a neon sign is a slower, less obvious form of EDM. We could say coronal discharge etching, but the electro-static potential may, at times, reach the threshold for arcing. We say EDM because there are multiple discharge levels occurring on comets, from electrostatic cleaning of dust, coronal discharge erosion, "magnetic vortex" etching, and possibly, infrequent arc machining.

I have to say that this is not made clear on a certain book advertisement web site.

Are you stating that there is no EDM machining and so "The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs" is wrong?

If there is actual EDM machining then

A dielectric material is needed so that sparks can form.
The sparks will be visible.
The sparks will produce X-rays in narrow bands and bursts.
The surface of the comet nucleus will be heated by the machining and this will be visible (especially at the sites of jets).

Reality Check · Aug 23, 2009

Just noticed another "pretty pictures look alike and so the things in them are the same" fallacy on that book advertisement web site (in addition to comet nuclei look like asteroids) - Plasma Galaxies.
Someone should tell David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill that spiral galaxies are not actually spirals with nothing in between their arms (Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation).

DeiRenDopa · Aug 24, 2009

There's a lot of stuff here solrey; so just a couple of points ...

solrey said:
[...]

Deirendopa had asked why planets don't act like comets, and I was demonstrating that they do, just in a less energetic manner, therefore it's not obvious.

Actually, I asked about other solar system bodies, which are far, far, far more numerous than planets: the natural satellites of the planets, asteroids, zodiacal dust, spaceprobes and rocket boosters (from Earth), ...

Also, I haven't been able to check properly, but it seems that the Earth's (and Jupiter's and Saturn's, and ...) magnetospheres are not at all like comets' comas (+/- tails) - for starters, there is no evidence of any DLs, as required by this EC idea - none of the asteroids which have been studied 'up close and personal' by spaceprobes (e.g. Ida, Eros, Mathilda, Steins) resemble comets, nor do any asteroids which have come close to Earth (quite a list!), nor do natural satellites such as the Moon, Deimos, and Phobos.

What quantitative studies have been done, to show that the data from spaceprobes which have gone past (or landed on) other solar system bodies is consistent with this EC idea?

Get ready, here comes "check"...

...and "mate".

Next?

I think this part of your post has to do with one of tusenfem's, but I can't see how it could possibly be considered as a real EC model; could you explain please?

DeiRenDopa · Aug 24, 2009

solrey said:
deirendopa,
If you call nearly 40 hours of sanding with 10 to go fun, yeah, it's reeeaaaallll fun.
Nah, I love it. Grandpa was a wood worker, it's in the blood.

Back OT. deirendopa said

Ah, the inner planets do have "comas" (magnetosphere's) and tails.
Go here for a diagram. The article describes some of the data MESSENGER collected from Mercury, particularly the surface sputtering and magnetic tornado's, but it's the diagram I'd like to direct your attention to. The structure is very similar to the Earth's magnetosphere, Venus too, even Mars, albeit very weak...and comets as well. All of the inner planets also have "stringy tails" nearly stretching all the way to the next planets orbital distance. The inner planets aren't experiencing rapid changes in their electric environment like comets do, but they receive a steady flow of charged particles from the Sun nonetheless, so they just remain in a non-luminescent state. Essentially they receive a, mostly, steady discharge from the Sun.

nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/multimedia/magnetic_tornadoes.html

I only pointed out the magnetron glow discharge because that would be the type of discharge mostly experienced, I was merely identifying the specific type of discharge. The strength and enhancement of the magnetic field doesn't really matter, that will fluctuate somewhat anyway.
The glow doesn't have to be bright and blinding, it can be a soft, neon-like glow as well. So the effect of the glow from discharge may or may not be "washed out" by reflection.

tusenfem, I'm doing my best with the time I have, trying to describe a very complicated, multifaceted process, sorry if it's not quite adequate.

What the EM field data depicts is two "stacked" DL's with a ring current just inside the inner DL. The outer DL at R1, the inner DL at R2, the ring current is that 10,000 Km thick current layer 25,000 Km downstream of R2. Multiple DL's and/or ring currents are not uncommon. That data actually makes the case for the EC even stronger, imo.
The Earth has strong ring currents, the "radiation belts", comets ring currents, are much weaker so they don't produce radiation like the Earth's. I wouldn't be surprised, not saying there is for sure, if there were also a third DL within a few hundred Km of the surface, which wouldn't be detected anyways unless a probe passed within that distance. The DL's dissipate and moderate the discharge current impinging on the surface. There is still a voltage potential between the surface and DL's. Even on Earth, there is a voltage potential of 100v/m @ sea level, even though the measured current of "flux transfer events" into the magnetosphere are on the order of hundreds of thousands of volts.

I think I should clear up the apparent confusion of what a discharge is. It seems that some of you good folks are stuck on the dramatic arc/spark type of discharge. That's what most are familiar with. But a discharge can be slow and steady as well, typically considered an electric current...as in a battery. A battery discharges slowly producing a steady electric current. That's pretty much a comet, it's essentially like those new capacitor batteries being developed, discharging at a mostly steady rate, but capable of rapid discharge as well.

(bold added)

My last post was in reply to the wrong one of yours solrey (sorry).

What does "The inner planets aren't experiencing rapid changes in their electric environment like comets do" mean? What changes in electric environment do comet experience (and how can one determine, or estimate, what such changes are)?

Also, what does "Essentially they [comets] receive a, mostly, steady discharge from the Sun" mean?

And it seems that you've removed (magnetron) glow discharge as a possible means of testing this EC idea ... if it can vary, be essentially undetectable (or not), is in any case not predictable, etc, etc, etc (or did I miss something important?).

Finally, I cannot see anything but a vague morphological similarity between comets' comas and planetary magnetospheres (i.e. they are both approximately spherical, circular in projection, with an extension in the anti-Sun direction). So can you please say more about the similarities you seem to see in them?

OK, one more: why don't the CLUSTER satellites have comas and tails?

Reality Check · Aug 24, 2009

solrey said:
Get ready, here comes "check"...

...and "mate".

Next?

Get ready, here comes "something unrelated to electric comets"...

Citation: Singh, N., K. Arcot, and B. E. Wells (2009), Parallel electric fields in mixing hot and cold plasmas in the auroral downward current region: Double layers and ambipolar fields, J. Geophys. Res., 114, A03209, doi:10.1029/2008JA013591.

...and "there it is"!

Magnetospheres produce auroras and require a body with a magnetic field. AFAIK comets do not have magnetic fields. They do not have magnetospheres. They do not have auroras.

solrey · Aug 24, 2009

Been a long day so I'll be brief. :boggled:

RealityCheck, I suggest you go over my previous posts regarding the various types of discharge and why they are all considered an EDM process.

Also, note my comments about eccentricity. What you said about eccentricity relating to the EC model is absolutely incorrect. No one in the EC camp, that I'm aware of, has ever made such statements.

The answer about the magnetic field is the interplanetary magnetic field. The comet is immersed in it, it doesn't need to have it's own.

A word about magnetron glow discharge. The magnetic enhancement really only becomes important if the magnetic field increases sufficiently to initiate the discharge, while the voltage potential remains steady, primarily applicable to Main Belt Comets.

The abstract relating to auroral discharge was in response to tusenfem's statement that my description of the stacked DL's was incorrect. I posted that to demonstrate that my description is correct. The same plasma physics still apply, regardless of whether we're talking about auroras or comets.
According to what you said about the discharge physics, as applied to auroras, not having anything to do with comets, would be like saying our quantification of gravity on Earth does not apply to Mars as well.

All objects in the solar system are immersed in the interplanetary EM field. All of them have some level of voltage potential. Nearly all are in a "rest" state until such time as the EM environment produces an increased voltage potential that bumps the rest state up to the discharge mode.

Reality Check · Aug 24, 2009

solrey said:
RealityCheck, I suggest you go over my previous posts regarding the various types of discharge and why they are all considered an EDM process.

EDM has a specific meaning. i.e. electrical discharge machining.
The other types of discharge are not EDM.

solrey said:
Also, note my comments about eccentricity. What you said about eccentricity relating to the EC model is absolutely incorrect. No one in the EC camp, that I'm aware of, has ever made such statements.

What comments?
I am not claiming that anyone in the EC camp stated this. They are not the only people in the world who can think. It is a logical consequence of the fact that main-belt comets exist.

solrey said:
The answer about the magnetic field is the interplanetary magnetic field. The comet is immersed in it, it doesn't need to have it's own.

Ditto for every body in the solar system, e.g. asteroids, and we are back to the question of why every asteroid is not a comet.

solrey said:
The abstract relating to auroral discharge was in response to tusenfem's statement that my description of the stacked DL's was incorrect. I posted that to demonstrate that my description is correct. The same plasma physics still apply, regardless of whether we're talking about auroras or comets.

What you posted is that evidence that your description is correct for the auroral downward current region.
Now post your evidence that cometary coma are the same as the auroral downward current region.

I can think of a couple of differences:

The Interplanetary Magnetic Field is 10^-9 tesla at the Earth - a factor of 10⁶ less than the Earth's magnetic field.
The simulated plasma consists of both hot and cold plasmas of the magnetospheric and ionospheric origins, respectively.

solrey said:
All objects in the solar system are immersed in the interplanetary EM field. All of them have some level of voltage potential.

How big is this voltage potential?
I would say that eveything in the universe has "some level of voltage potential". The real question is that effect that has.

solrey said:
Nearly all are in a "rest" state until such time as the EM environment produces an increased voltage potential that bumps the rest state up to the discharge mode.

What is the amount of increase in voltage potential that bumps the "rest" state up to the discharge mode?

Citations?

solrey · Aug 24, 2009

Spark machining is a specific, controlled manufacturing process that utilizes the physics of electrode erosion to machine hard materials and is just one type of discharge within the category of EDM.

cadm.zut.edu.pl/pub/prawie%20wszystko%20o%20edm%20(ang).pdf

Four main types of steady or quasi-steady processes exist:
• the Townsend’s dark discharge, characterized by a very weak current (∼ 10−8 A);
• the glow discharge, widely used in many industrial processes, operating at low current (∼ 10−2 A), fairly high voltage (∼ 1 kV) and low pressure (∼ mbar). The glow plasma is weakly ionized and in a non-equilibrium state, and is visible as a uniform glowing column. As in the Townsend’s discharge, electrons are emitted by ion impacts on the cold cathode;
• the corona discharge, also at low current (∼ 10−6 A) but at atmospheric pressure. Corona discharges develop locally (typically around sharp ends of wires) in strongly non-uniform electric field;
• the arc discharge, characterized by high current (∼ 100 A), low voltage (∼ 10 V) and a bright light emission. The arc discharge differs from the glow discharge in the electron emission mechanism. In arcs, electrons are emitted by thermionic processes, due to the heating of the cathode. The plasma of high pressure arcs can be considered to be in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

The physics of the multiple stacked double layers are not limited to the downward auroral current. The proof that this applies to comets is in the following data.

Based upon the behavior of the electric fields and the cold electrons, three regions can be identified in the cometosheath (in particular during the Vega 1 approach): transition layers are passed through at ∼780,000 km (R 1) and ∼360,000 km (R 2). The outer cometosheath (near and beyond R 1) is characterized by large-scale variations in the cold electron density and the electric field, peaking at ∼1 mHz. The R 2 crossing is detected in the plasma wave data as enhanced fluctuations at ∼15 mHz. About 25,000 km downstream of R 2, the spacecraft traverses a current layer (thickness ∼10,000 km) indicated by a sharp gradient in the dc electric field and the cold electron density.

* The Interplanetary Magnetic Field is 10-9 tesla at the Earth - a factor of 106 less than the Earth's magnetic field.
* The simulated plasma consists of both hot and cold plasmas of the magnetospheric and ionospheric origins, respectively.

I don't recall them saying anything about magnetic field strength affecting the development of multiple double layers. That being said, I haven't seen the full paper with the equations to determine what effect changes in B would have. I believe the magnetic field merely acts to guide the direction of charged particle flow resulting in field aligned currents. The physics apply whether within Earth's magnetic field and magnetosphere/ionosphere ( stacked DL's also, btw

) , or a comets coma and the interplanetary magnetic field. Hot and cold plasmas apply to comets as well. The hot plasma is the solar plasma stream and the cold plasma is the ionized gas within the coma.

What is the amount of increase in voltage potential that bumps the "rest" state up to the discharge mode?

There are too many variables to be able to say, oh X-volts is all it takes. I won't even get into amperage right now, we'll just consider that it remains constant. Just to give you an idea, it could require an increase of, as low as <1v, or as high as >10,000v.

tusenfem · Aug 24, 2009

solrey said:
Get ready, here comes "check"...
...and "mate".

Next?

Not really:

Then again the distributed potential evolves into localized potential drops like in a stack of multiple double layers.

solrey · Aug 24, 2009

tusenfem, wassup?

OK, I'm a friendly guy so I'll concede to your position that my previous example of stacked double layers applies only to Earth's aurora as the abstract implies.

That's alright, I have backup.

While it doesn't mention comets, there is a list of literature on double layers, even a list on multiple double layers, at the end of the following presentation.
Multiple Double Layers in Laboratory Experiments Relevant for Space Plasma Phenomena.

phys.uit.no/IPELS05/Talks&posters/Monday/SchrittwieserIPELS%208%20InvLect.pps

Generation and Dynamics of Multiple Double Layers in Plasma.

epsppd.epfl.ch/Roma/pdf/P4_011.pdf

Whether you think they apply to comets or not, this has all been in reply to the following statement:

That does not make ANY sense at all in DL talk, stacked double layers do not have a strong electric field gradient in between them, see e.g. stairstep double layers, in which it is shown that strong voltage drops in a plasma column split itself up into several DLs.

Okeydokey:

Under certain experimental conditions, a more complex structure in form of two or more subsequent DLs was observed, called a multiple double layer (MDL). It appears as several bright and concentric plasma shells attached to the anode of a glow discharge or to a positively biased electrode immersed in plasma. The successive DLs are precisely located at the abrupt changes of luminosity between two adjacent plasma shells. The axial profile of the plasma potential has a stair step shape, with each potential drop being close to the ionization potential of the gas atoms. This kind of structure was recently called concentric multiple double layer.

solrey · Aug 24, 2009

I realize that my description of the stretched coma and tail, as well as the ionization sequence of OH^- was awkward, to say the least.
I'll try again.

First, the shells of the electro-magnetic environment are not to be confused with the visible dust shells which are the result of the off-gassing and dust from erosion being accelerated away from the points of discharge on the surface. Rotation of the comet swirls the stream around the nucleus as the outbound neg. ions in the coma mix with pos. ions moving towards the surface. The neg. ions give up electrons neutralizing the charge and decreasing the pos. potential of the highly ionized H⁺ ions that receive those electrons, on their way to electro-chemical reactions on, and near, the surface.
The solar plasma stream flows from the pos. potential at the Sun outward to the relatively neg. potential at the heliopause. The high velocity flow of strong pos. ionized particles drags the neg. and neutral atoms and molecules from the coma with them, while the voltage potential stretches the DL shells out to a teardrop configuration. The filaments and fans are field aligned currents in a dusty plasma.

Reality Check · Aug 25, 2009

EC predicts that 173,583 asteroids should be comets

EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.
There may be other factors involved but since there is no actual EC model there is no list available.

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets.
In fact there are asteroids in orbits that are get close to cometary orbits, e.g. 2005 VX3 with an eccentricity of 0.9955142)

The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows that there are 173,583 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17.

The EC excuse (according to Sol88) is that low solar activity is the reason that these 173,583 cataloged asteroids are not comets. What Sol88 has not realized is that each asteroid is observed a number of times over a period of days to years. These 173,583 cataloged asteroids were not clse to the the Sun at the same instant of time. These asteroids were observed during a range of solar activity. That range included times that comets were visible.

So how many of these should be comets?

EC has no actual physical model and so never gives numbers so we do not expect help there.

Conclusion: EC currently predicts that 100% of the 173,583 asteroids should be comets.
We could be generous and assume that average solar activity is needed and so there are 86,791 asteroids that should be comets according to the EC idea. But that can wait until an EC proponent comes up with actual observations related to EC :eye-poppi

!

Good examples of the asteriods that should be comets according to the EC idea are many of the named asteroids:

Juno (e=0.2553, observed over a span of 67,610 days).
Pallas (e=0.2309, observed over a span of 64,291 days)
Astraea (e=0.1917, observed over a span of 59,759 days)
...More than 46 other named asteroids observed 1000's of times over decades.
Vera (e=0.1939, observed over a span of 45,191 days)

This analysis is in fact being generous to the EC idea. A stricter analysis would be to look at the orbital parameters of all comets (not just main-belt comets). This shows that the comet 158P/Kowal-LINEAR has an eccentricity of 0.0279 and a perihelion distance of 4.594 AU.

There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than 0.0279.

Sol88 · Aug 25, 2009

Reality Check said:
EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.
There may be other factors involved but since there is no actual EC model there is no list available.

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets.
In fact there are asteroids in orbits that are get close to cometary orbits, e.g. 2005 VX3 with an eccentricity of 0.9955142)

The JPL Small-Body Database Browser has a search engine. This shows that there are 173,583 cataloged asteroids with an eccentricity > 0.17.

The EC excuse (according to Sol88) is that low solar activity is the reason that these 173,583 cataloged asteroids are not comets. What Sol88 has not realized is that each asteroid is observed a number of times over a period of days to years. These 173,583 cataloged asteroids were not clse to the the Sun at the same instant of time. These asteroids were observed during a range of solar activity. That range included times that comets were visible.

So how many of these should be comets?

EC has no actual physical model and so never gives numbers so we do not expect help there.

Conclusion: EC currently predicts that 100% of the 173,583 asteroids should be comets.
We could be generous and assume that average solar activity is needed and so there are 86,791 asteroids that should be comets according to the EC idea. But that can wait until an EC proponent comes up with actual observations related to EC !

Good examples of the asteriods that should be comets according to the EC idea are many of the named asteroids:

Juno (e=0.2553, observed over a span of 67,610 days).

Pallas (e=0.2309, observed over a span of 64,291 days)

Astraea (e=0.1917, observed over a span of 59,759 days)

...More than 46 other named asteroids observed 1000's of times over decades.

Vera (e=0.1939, observed over a span of 45,191 days)

This analysis is in fact being generous to the EC idea. A stricter analysis would be to look at the orbital parameters of all comets (not just main-belt comets). This shows that the comet 158P/Kowal-LINEAR has an eccentricity of 0.0279 and a perihelion distance of 4.594 AU.

There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than 0.0279.

ETA RC

What is 2005 VX3's orbital period?

Reality Check · Aug 25, 2009

Sol88 said:
ETA RC

What is 2005 VX3's orbital period?

If you click on the link then you will see that it is 27,756.30 years.

ETA
While you are there click on the "show orbit diagram" link - it is kind of neat!

DeiRenDopa · Aug 25, 2009

Good to read that you're trying to clarify things solrey.

I'm puzzled about a few things though, perhaps you could explain?

solrey said:
I realize that my description of the stretched coma and tail, as well as the ionization sequence of OH^- was awkward, to say the least.
I'll try again.

First, the shells of the electro-magnetic environment

What does this mean?

are not to be confused with the visible dust shells which are the result of the off-gassing and dust from erosion being accelerated away from the points of discharge on the surface.

Is there any evidence that dust accelerates away from the surface of a comet?

Rotation of the comet swirls the stream around the nucleus as the outbound neg. ions in the coma mix with pos. ions moving towards the surface.

This seems another way of saying that there is a current between the nucleus and ... well, it's not clear what the other end of the current is, nor what drives it (the circuit must close somewhere) ...

The neg. ions give up electrons neutralizing the charge and decreasing the pos. potential of the highly ionized H⁺ ions that receive those electrons, on their way to electro-chemical reactions on, and near, the surface.

What are the electrons in the solar wind doing?

Also, an H⁺ ion is a proton; once it combines with an electron it becomes neutral; there is only one charge a proton can have, unlike the ionised form of other atoms (which have more than one electron to lose), so what do you mean by "highly ionized"?

The solar plasma stream flows from the pos. potential at the Sun outward to the relatively neg. potential at the heliopause.

Now I'm getting quite confused.

What evidence is there that the Sun is at a different potential than the heliopause?

The high velocity flow of strong pos. ionized particles drags the neg. and neutral atoms and molecules from the coma with them, while the voltage potential stretches the DL shells out to a teardrop configuration. The filaments and fans are field aligned currents in a dusty plasma.

Isn't the solar wind a plasma? If so, how can any charged particle in it respond to a non-zero charge more than a Debye length or so from it?

Is there any evidence that the kind of particle transport you describe can happen, a lab experiment say?

tusenfem · Aug 25, 2009

solrey said:
While it doesn't mention comets, there is a list of literature on double layers, even a list on multiple double layers, at the end of the following presentation.
Multiple Double Layers in Laboratory Experiments Relevant for Space Plasma Phenomena.

phys.uit.no/IPELS05/Talks&posters/Monday/SchrittwieserIPELS%208%20InvLect.pps

Generation and Dynamics of Multiple Double Layers in Plasma.

epsppd.epfl.ch/Roma/pdf/P4_011.pdf

Whether you think they apply to comets or not, this has all been in reply to the following statement:

What you seem to forget is that this "double layer" would be perpendicular to the piled up magnetic field. That is rather hard to achieve.

solrey · Aug 26, 2009

RealityCheck, your statements on eccentricity are simply your interpretation of a theory that you seem to know little about, and believe in even less.
No one involved with EC theory has ever set limits on eccentricity.

Consistently bringing up your interpretation of density and eccentricity issues are merely red-herrings that in no way falsify the EC theory, sorry.

Tusenfem, It's my understanding that the DL sheaths are perpendicular to the direction of particle flow. Introducing a magnetic field affects the direction of particle flow, thus the orientation of the sheaths. In the case of the comet, the particle flow is perpendicular to the surface therefore the sheaths will be perpendicular to this flow, thus parallel to the surface.

deirendopa, you're right about H⁺ ions, I know, one electron, and there are more than just hydrogen ions in the solar plasma stream. I should have said as a whole, the bulk ionization is slightly neutralized as the particles flow to the surface.
Interesting discoveries about ion drag and Debye length:
arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411021

At the moment there is a controversy about the ion drag force: the model by Barnes et al. assumes that “... no ion interaction with the particles occurs outside of a Debye length” according to the standard Coulomb scattering theory. However, in complex plasmas the range of the ion-microparticle interaction is usually larger than the Debye screening length. Hence standard Coluomb scattering theory is not applicable.
As shown by Khrapak et al. this fact can lead to a strong enhancement of the ion drag force compared to the model by Barnes. Investigating the trajectories of particles falling through a rf discharge plasma, Zafiu et al. concluded that the ion drag force is given by Barnes’ formula if the electron Debye length is used there. However, in a bulk plasma with a subthermal ion drift velocity the Debye length is usually given by the ion Debye length leading to a significantly smaller ion drag force using Barnes’ formula.

So basically Barnes formula is accurate vs. experiment if the electron Debye length is plugged into the formula, as opposed to the, commonly expressed, ion Debye length, which yields a solution of < vs. experiment. Interesting that ion drag would have an electron Debye length component, which makes sense considering that a ⁺ ion wants to have it's vacant electron shell(s) repopulated.

Considering the heliosphere as a quasi-neutral dusty plasma, the plasma near the sun has a greater ⁺ charge density, which decreases with distance as particles collide and neutralize, thus producing a voltage potential between the sun and heliosheath. Full blown EU theory expands on this and says that the heliosheath is also a plasma Double Layer, the inner layer (sun side) of ^- charge, the outer layer (galaxy side) of ⁺ charge providing a voltage potential between the Sun and inner layer of the heliosheath.
I think Alfven was spot-on when he said that DL's should be treated as their own cosmological phenomena, and that we should see them everywhere.

Reality Check · Aug 26, 2009

solrey said:
RealityCheck, your statements on eccentricity are simply your interpretation of a theory that you seem to know little about, and believe in even less.
No one involved with EC theory has ever set limits on eccentricity.

Then correct me.
What is the actual EC critera that distinguishes between a rock and a comet (aside from the obvious coma and tail!).

If the EC idea is so primitive that it cannot distinguish between a rock and a comet then it is fairly useless.

Just using eccentricity is a bit simplistic. I should also add in perihelion distance (maybe within Jupiter's orbit).

There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than 0.0279.
They have a variety of perihelion distances.
They have a variety of other properties (mass, composition, inclination, etc.).
Thus many of them should be comets according to the EC idea.
But they are not.

DeiRenDopa · Aug 26, 2009

solrey said:
RealityCheck, your statements on eccentricity are simply your interpretation of a theory that you seem to know little about, and believe in even less.
No one involved with EC theory has ever set limits on eccentricity.

Consistently bringing up your interpretation of density and eccentricity issues are merely red-herrings that in no way falsify the EC theory, sorry.

[...]

(bold added)

solrey, are you using "theory" to mean a scientific theory (as in, for example, special theory of relativity)? If not, then what do you mean; perhaps something like a common synonym for "guess" or "speculation"?

If, perchance, you do mean scientific theory, may I ask where this theory has been published?

[...]

Considering the heliosphere as a quasi-neutral dusty plasma, the plasma near the sun has a greater + charge density, which decreases with distance as particles collide and neutralize, thus producing a voltage potential between the sun and heliosheath.

I have no idea what this means; can you clarify please?

Specifically, what does "the plasma near the sun has a greater + charge density" mean?

And after you've explained what it means, would you please say a few words about why?

Full blown EU theory expands on this and says that the heliosheath is also a plasma Double Layer, the inner layer (sun side) of - charge, the outer layer (galaxy side) of + charge providing a voltage potential between the Sun and inner layer of the heliosheath.

[...]

(bold added)

As JREF Forum members have learned, there is no such thing as an "EU theory", in the scientific sense (would you like some material on that?), so I guess this is just wild speculation, right?

Thanks for the other material, I'll take a careful look at it later.

Reality Check · Aug 26, 2009

solrey said:
I think Alfven was spot-on when he said that DL's should be treated as their own cosmological phenomena, and that we should see them everywhere.

Thanks for the reminder.
Debye Length

Hannes Alfven pointed out that: "In a low density plasma, localized space charge regions may build up large potential drops over distances of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths. Such regions have been called electric double layers. An electric double layer is the simplest space charge distribution that gives a potential drop in the layer and a vanishing electric field on each side of the layer. In the laboratory, double layers have been studied for half a century, but their importance in cosmic plasmas has not been generally recognized.".

(emphasis added)

The Debye length of the solar wind is about 10 metres. Some tens of the Debye lengths in the solar wind is at most 1000 metres. This suggests that the transition layers mentioned in tusenfem's post about Comet Halley comet are unlikely to be DLs.

solrey · Aug 26, 2009

OK, hypothesis.

RealityCheck, I was talking previously about ion-drag, of which Debye length of the solar plasma stream is a function, yes.
Debye length as related to DL's, however, is affected by a number of variables. The paper referenced below, in particular, is applicable to the EC hypothesis, in regards to the comet being an electrode (cathode), in a complex, dusty plasma with a DC bias (the sun). The RF modulation in the experiment is analogous to the RF band of EM waves that permeate the solar system. Note how increases in DC bias (voltage), result in corresponding increases in sheath thickness, and distance from electrode (radius of DL from surface). Take into consideration that just cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm is on the order of 10⁹V and the fact that the voltage potential a comet experiences, would be orders of magnitude higher.

Relationship Between the DC Bias and Debye Length in a Complex Plasma.
arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0701063

This next paper illustrates some interesting diversions from Child-Langmuir law that could be applicable if we consider the comet to be in a similar condition as that described in a weakly collisional plasma (solar wind stream of <10 protons/cm³
Sheath Thickness Evaluation for Collisionless or Weakly Collisional Bounded Plasmas
minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/10932/file_1.pdf?sequence=1

:eye-poppi

Reality Check · Aug 26, 2009

solrey said:
Take into consideration that just cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm is on the order of 10⁹V and the fact that the voltage potential a comet experiences, would be orders of magnitude higher.

Can you give a citation for "the fact that the voltage potential a comet experiences, would be orders of magnitude higher"?
Since it is a fact you must have actual measurements of the voltage potential between a comet and something else acting as a cloud (the coma?).

Sol88 · Aug 26, 2009

Reality Check said:
Hints:
What is a "rock" in the EC universe?
What does comparing a comet to an asteroid really mean in the EC universe?

Rock is what "we" all call rock, rock

In geology, rock is a naturally occurring solid aggregate of minerals and/or mineraloids.

LINK

And as solrey said , hi solrey

, density is not as important in EU as it is under the current mainstream understanding!

e.g. they are not fluffysnowballs, or highly porous dirtyiceballs

Reality Check · Aug 26, 2009

Sol88 said:
Rock is what "we" all call rock, rock LINK

And as solrey said , hi solrey , density is not as important in EU as it is under the current mainstream understanding!

e.g. they are not fluffysnowballs, or highly porous dirtyiceballs

In geology, rock is a naturally occurring solid aggregate of minerals and/or mineraloids

(emphasis added)
The defect in the density point is that you do know know what the the EC authors actually state. Read a certain book advertisement site sometime.
Asteroid Itokawa

In the electric model comets, asteroids, and meteorites originated in either the same or similar events. The model thus predicts that, as we come to learn more about comets and asteroids, we will see that their compositional types match those of meteorites, a class of objects that has been well studied.

Predictions on “Deep Impact”

Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black, leaving the distinctive scarring patterns of electric discharge. 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.

(Google +site:thunderbolts.info +comet +rock +asteroid to get 554 results)

Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids)

Reality Check said:
The electric comet idea states that comets are rocky bodies like asteroids.
For some reason EC proponents cannot grasp that the measured density of comet nuclei is ~0.6 g/cc, the measured density of asteroids is ~3.0 g/cc and that 0.6 is less than 3.0 .
They tend to reply by asserting the methods used to calculate the density of comets are flawed in some unknown way.

So here is one method that is used for both comets and asteroids or any planetary body.

Firstly calculate the mass of the body:

Measure the orbit of the body around the Sun to determine its semi-major axis (a) and period (P).

Plug this into Kepler's third law to get the mass (usually as a ratio to a known mass).

Next calculate the volume of the body. For closer bodies you can just look in a telescope. For further bodies you can measure radii as the body occludes stars.

Divide the mass by the volume to get the density.

A method for comets:
Jets observed to come from comets alter their orbits. This is the same physics used in rockets - throw mass away and the reaction will push the comet the other way.
This can be used to calculate their masses, e.g. see "Cometary masses derived from non-gravitational forces" by Sosa & Fernandez, 2009.

For the Tempel 1 comet:
The Deep Impact mission crashed an impactor into the nucleus of Tempel 1. The ejecta from this impact was used to calculate the mass of Tempel 1.
See "A ballistics analysis of the Deep Impact ejecta plume: Determining Comet Tempel 1's gravity, mass, and density" by Richardson, et al., 2007.

For a more general paper: "Size Distribution, Structure and Density of Cometary Nuclei" by Weissman & Lowry, 2006.

DeiRenDopa · Aug 26, 2009

solrey said:
OK, hypothesis.

[...]

No, it's not one of those either.

At least, not in the sense that "hypothesis" is used in science today (and this is, after all, the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology part of the JREF Forum).

Perhaps idea?

solrey · Aug 26, 2009

Since it is a fact you must have actual measurements of the voltage potential between a comet and something else acting as a cloud (the coma?).

My original statement was thus:

Take into consideration that just cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm is on the order of 109V and the fact that the voltage potential a comet experiences, would be orders of magnitude higher.

Note the qualifier, would, which I used intentionally. Not IS.
Regardless, the answer is that a DC electric field has been measured, as related below, but I don't have numbers on the exact strength of that field.

Based upon the behavior of the electric fields and the cold electrons, three regions can be identified in the cometosheath (in particular during the Vega 1 approach): transition layers are passed through at ∼780,000 km (R 1) and ∼360,000 km (R 2). The outer cometosheath (near and beyond R 1) is characterized by large-scale variations in the cold electron density and the electric field, peaking at ∼1 mHz. The R 2 crossing is detected in the plasma wave data as enhanced fluctuations at ∼15 mHz. About 25,000 km downstream of R 2, the spacecraft traverses a current layer (thickness ∼10,000 km) indicated by a sharp gradient in the dc electric field and the cold electron density.

RealityCheck, any random group of rocky bodies can have a wide range of densities. You keep coming back to the same red herrings, which seems to be a result of a very simplistic view of the EC hypothesis specifically, and of the related geology/chemistry/physics in general.

Yeah, EC is at least a hypothesis, deirendopa.
From the American Heritage Science Dictionary, 2005 ed.

A theory is a set of statements, including laws and hypotheses, that explains a group of observations or phenomena in terms of those laws and hypotheses. A theory thus accounts for a wider variety of events than a law does. Broad acceptance of a theory comes when it has been tested repeatedly on new data and been used to make accurate predictions. Although a theory generally contains hypotheses that are still open to revision, sometimes it is hard to know where the hypothesis ends and the law or theory begins.

From Collins Essential English:

Hypothesis
A suggested explanation for a group of facts, accepted either as a basis for further verification or as likely to be true

Now we're down to debating symantics? Hmmmmmmm.

HI sol88.

DeiRenDopa · Aug 26, 2009

solrey said:
[...]

Yeah, EC is at least a hypothesis, deirendopa.
From the American Heritage Science Dictionary, 2005 ed.

From Collins Essential English:

Now we're down to debating symantics? Hmmmmmmm.

[...]

Perhaps ...

... perhaps not.

In terms of how the speech community which is comprised of scientists (or at least physical science professioinals), "hypothesis" has a clear meaning, and from what you have presented so far in this thread, the EC idea most definitely is NOT a hypothesis! Among other things, AFAIK, there are no papers describing it (as in, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals); absent such papers, whatever it is, it CANNOT be a hypothesis (or a theory, or ...).

BTW, dictionaries and the like are fine at a coarse level, but as linguists have known for decades, specific speech communities make much finer distinctions, and within those communities, the fine distinctions matter a great deal!

Of course, here in the SMM&T section of the JREF Forum, the question of whether to use "hypothesis" or "idea" basically comes down to how effective you want to be at communicating your thoughts to readers here. I suggest to you that deliberately choosing a word which is manifestly inappropriate (to your intended audience) is counterproductive, in terms of being effective in communication.

Just my €0.02's worth ...

solrey · Aug 26, 2009

Hey deirendopa. Yes, I'm aware that broad definitions are narrowed down more specifically within a given discipline, or body of knowledge.

I define the EC as a hypothesis because it entails numerous individual processes that when combined, explain a particular complex system, or phenomena. It is testable, has a body of supporting evidence (some of which I have elucidated here), observations that fit the model (regardless if other explanations already exist), requires further investigation, both in the form of lab work and detailed, in-situ confirmation, and there is room for modification of various aspects within the model, if new evidence requires it, while remaining within the constraints, or reasonable margin of error, of the original hypothesis.

I feel that just calling EC an idea is an attempt to; demean and discredit as simplistic, a complex hypothesis and those who believe in it's validity.
If you choose to call a model that involves complex details in geology, chemistry, electro-magnetism and magnetohydrodynamics, merely an idea, then I suppose that's your choice.

I'm not saying symantics and proper terminology aren't important or necessary in science, of course they are.

DeiRenDopa · Aug 26, 2009

solrey said:
Hey deirendopa. Yes, I'm aware that broad definitions are narrowed down more specifically within a given discipline, or body of knowledge.

I define the EC as a hypothesis because it entails numerous individual processes that when combined, explain a particular complex system, or phenomena.

OK

It is testable, has a body of supporting evidence (some of which I have elucidated here), observations that fit the model (regardless if other explanations already exist),

That may be so, however, AFAIK, none of this has been written up in the form of a paper, and published.

For example, the plausibility of a motley collection of stuff, strung together by nothing more than words (i.e. no apparent attempts at back-of-the-envelope consistency checks) is, I'm sure you'll agree, quite low in the eyes of regulars of an avowedly pro-critical thinking forum; a single paper would change that perception quickly.

requires further investigation, both in the form of lab work and detailed, in-situ confirmation, and there is room for modification of various aspects within the model, if new evidence requires it, while remaining within the constraints, or reasonable margin of error, of the original hypothesis.

Little, if any, of which has been presented here (AFAIK).

For example, within a few years' time, we will likely have some high quality, in situ, quantitative data from the Rosetta mission. Yet, AFAIK, little if any of that data could be used to test any EC ideas ... if only because virtually none of those ideas have been written up as testable hypotheses (again, apart from anything else, there's nothing quantitative about any EC ideas).

I feel that just calling EC an idea is an attempt to; demean and discredit as simplistic, a complex hypothesis and those who believe in it's validity.

I can't say what your feelings might, or might be; however, I can point out a likely, common, reaction that regulars here will have to "hypothesis" vs "idea".

For example, in an earlier post you directly linked "EC theory" to "full-blown EU theory" (or something like that). A more certain way to declare that "EC theory" is pure crackpottery would be hard to imagine, given the contents of several threads here ... and it matters not a jot how unfair, unreasonable, unjust, etc you may feel such a response would be.

If you choose to call a model that involves complex details in geology, chemistry, electro-magnetism and magnetohydrodynamics, merely an idea, then I suppose that's your choice.

It ain't a model neither!

As I have said, at least once now, there are no numbers ... goodness, there aren't even outlines of possible (electro-)chemical reactions (and "electro-magnetism" may be another red flag; you used this word before - "the shells of the electromagnetic environment" - to refer to something which only you seem to know about).

I'm not saying symantics and proper terminology aren't important or necessary in science, of course they are.

And I'm not saying there's nothing to this EC idea, of course there may be.

However, I'm trying to suggest (nothing more) that you may be making presentation of your ideas more difficult to follow (let alone accept) by using standard words (as used by your target audience) in non-standard ways.

solrey · Aug 26, 2009

In an acid-base neutralization reaction,
– H+ from acid reacts with the OH– from base → water, H2O
– The cation (M+) from base combines with anion from acid (X–) → the salt

HX(aq) + BOH(aq) → H2O(l) + BX(aq)
acid base water salt
Note: -An acid will always react with a base to produce water and a salt.
– It does not matter if the salt produced is soluble or insoluble since water always forming means a reaction always occurs.

Hmmmmm, could I just maybe know what I'm talking about here?

seattlecentral.edu/faculty/mvillarba/CHEM139/Chapter08.pdf
pg. 9

In the case of the comet, we're dealing with a gaseous solution instead of an aqueous one, but the chemistry remains the same as it's only H⁺ and OH^- (from the mineral base) that are involved in the reaction.

The next reaction in the chain is the electro-chemical reaction between the mineral salts and H₂O

The next reaction that would occur is when that water then reacts with free electrons, liberated from the surface, within the electric field of the discharge current. Mineral salts in the dust and flakes etched from the surface are probably involved in this reaction. The cathode reaction is:
2H2O + 2e- -> 2OH- + H2

That's one key reaction chain. I see several others that could apply to comets as well, in the above pdf., primarily the H₂O produced by a Hydrogen - Oxygen reaction either thermally induced (burning in the heat of the discharge on the surface) or catalytically (analogous to the catalytic reaction in a hydrogen fuel cell).

I have confirmed the proposed composition of a semi-conducting rock via comparison with the material analyzed in the stardust mission and all of the necessary materials are present.

I have analyzed and presented citations confirming the chemical/electro-chemical reaction chains.

I have reviewed the measured EM environment ( of one comet at least ) and compared it to laboratory research involving multiple double layers, ion-drag effects, as well as radius and thickness of the DL sheaths.
I'll hopefully get around to doing the math as applies to comets, but I'm afraid that insufficient data is available for some critical variables so I'm going to have to make some educated guesses, I suppose.

But hey, it's just an "idea"...right?

solrey · Aug 26, 2009

deirendopa, thank you for the friendly suggestions and advice.

I take it as valuable, constructive feedback.

Reality Check · Aug 26, 2009

solrey said:
RealityCheck, any random group of rocky bodies can have a wide range of densities. You keep coming back to the same red herrings, which seems to be a result of a very simplistic view of the EC hypothesis specifically, and of the related geology/chemistry/physics in general.

solrey, I keep on returning to the physical facts.
Comets have a range of measured densities centered around ~0.6 g/cc.
Asteroids have a range of measured densities centered around ~3 g/cc.
Any random group of comets have a different density from any random group of asteroids.
Thus comets are not asteroids.

This is a result of the many simplistic

assertions on the EC web site that state that the EC "model" includes comets are asteroids.

solrey · Aug 26, 2009

realitycheck, have you reviewed my comments regarding Main Belt Comets and localized perturbations to their EM/chemical environment initiating a cometary phase or display? Or remember that I've been saying that all densities are valid within the EC?

Just for the sake of discussion, to consider a comet of ~ 0.6 g/cm³, of similar material as revealed in Stardust, fits easily within EC, as a factor of porosity.
It's that simple.

It's not worth dwelling on, really.

Tomaytow, tomahhtow...whaddya do?

The Electric Comet theory

Unregistered

Illuminator

Unregistered

Unregistered

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Unregistered

Penultimate Amazing

Unregistered

Illuminator

Unregistered

Unregistered

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Illuminator

Unregistered

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Unregistered

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Unregistered

Master Poster

Unregistered

Master Poster

Unregistered

Unregistered

Penultimate Amazing

Unregistered