Originally Posted by
jonesdave116
Lest we forget (and I can't be bothered with refs, because they've been done soooo many times);
The comet isn't rock (MIRO, CONSERT, plus orbital measurements, plus the 9P impact).
There IS H2O, as has been well known since 1985 (KAO), plus umpteen other detections.
There is no electric woo. As (not) measured. As per, for instance, the diamagnetic cavity at 1P and 67P. No magnetic field = (fill in as necessary).
To finish, without writing 5000 words, the electric comet woo has been shown to be total woo, as expected, by numerous missions to comets, as well as distant observations of such. It is nonsense. It is cretinous nonsense, in fact. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-idiotic idea. It has gone to meet the choir invisible. It is an ex idea.
Goodnight Polly. Bye bye David. Tata Wal. Try better next time. Loons.
Magnetic field??
We are after the electric field?
Which has been confirmed on 67p.
Effective ion speeds at ~200-250 km from comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko near perihelion
Quote:
ABSTRACT In August 2015, comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, the target comet of the ESA Rosetta mission, reached its perihelion at ~1.24 AU. Here we estimate for a three-day period near perihelion, effective ion speeds at distances ~200-250 km from the nucleus. We utilize two different methods combining measurements from the Rosetta Plasma Consortium (RPC)/ Mutual Impedance Probe (MIP) with measurements either from the RPC/Langmuir Probe (LAP) or from the Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and Neutral Analysis (ROSINA)/Comet Pressure Sensor (COPS) (the latter method can only be applied to estimate the effective ion drift speed). The obtained ion speeds, typically in the range 2-8 km s-1, are markedly higher than the expected neutral outflow velocity of ~1 km s-1. This indicates that the ions were de-coupled from the neutrals before reaching the spacecraft location and that they had undergone acceleration along electric fields, not necessarily limited to acceleration along ambipolar electric fields in the radial direction. For the limited time period studied we see indications that at increasing distances from the nucleus the fraction of the ions’ kinetic energy associated with radial drift motion is decreasing.
But telling is
Quote:
Making assumptions of collisionally coupled ions ease some of the complexity of ionospheric modelling as the influence of electromagnetic fields then is neglected.
Math to hard now!