View Single Post
Old 3rd December 2019, 12:53 PM   #1000
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Point 1: I know nowhere near as much about plasma physics as Tusenfem. Obviously. However, I know far more about it than you or the idiot Thornhill.

Point 2: You have run away again, haven't you? Go read the Patzold paper, and tell us what figures he is suggesting for the ice mass loss. Need me to do it for you? I think we all know why you won't answer that. It is quite plain in the paper. Go find it, and stop chickening out. Any ice kills your woo, and there are hundreds of thousands to millions of tonnes of it. Just as your woo was killed back in 2005 by the impact at Tempel 1.
Ok, hang let me look again...
Quote:
When gravity is neglected and a constant outflow velocity is assumed, the total flux of non collisional water vapor in a comet will be constant through any spherical shell around the nucleus at distance r This is called the Haser model(Haser1957),and is described below. The number density of watervapor,n, as a function of the distance,r, from the comet nucleusis
Energy conversion in cometary atmospheres and that’s the HASER model...this give jonesdave116 his billions of tonnes of ice from Tempel 1 along with a way out estimation for dust to gas ratio.



So Patzold, says for the porousity guestimate of 80%...
Quote:
(ii) upper porosity bound: if ice = 0, then Fnucleus = ∞ and dust (1-poro)-bulk = 0 in (11) and, not so unrealistically, the nucleus would be a highly porous stony agglomerate, essentially devoid of volitiles.
Quote:
For very high Fnucleus values, the nucleus is highly porous and dusty with very little ice (e.g. for Fnucleus = 7, the ice content is about 7% for porosities between 68% and 80%, respectively). A variation in porosity by 1% beyond the 70% implies a steep increase in Fnucleus, leaving only a tiny fractional ice content. As a reminder, the upper bound on the porosity is 73% to 85% for a highly porous stony body without ice for the selected dust material density range.
So a rocky body with no ice?
Quote:
envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock,
A’Hearn
__________________
“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

Last edited by Sol88; 3rd December 2019 at 12:54 PM.
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 Back to Top