View Single Post
Old 16th October 2019, 07:36 PM   #188
Sol88's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,778
We detect ice grains in comet coma (Sol88's insanity incudes that these do not exist when he has cited papers detecting them at 67P!).
Pony up then champ.

At the scale of the COSIMA image resolution (pixel size is 14mm), there is no hint of volatiles having left the grains after collection. In other words, there is no indication of an ice–mineral mixture, or of pure icy grains hitting the target. This is in contrast to cometary grains remotely observed, or collected before the Rosetta mission.
Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko sheds dust coat accumulated over the past four years

So Reality Checks
Anyone with a couple of brains cells will agree that "50% additional production that could come from the sublimation of icy grains" is possible.
Could, if there was indeed icy grains at 67P. Otherwise youve WAAAAYY overestimated water production!

The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice
The Nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko – Part I: The global view – nucleus mass, mass-loss, porosity, and implications

Once we envisioned
Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited
Yup, using mainstream models and Rosetta's data has revised the dirtysnowball to a highly porous dust ball with no ice... ouch!
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top