Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Cold and warm electrons at comet 67P
The 3rd post in a row irrelevant to your delusion that comets are rocks, Sol88!
Click to expand...

Ok, let's play the devils advocate from the mainstream point of view.

Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered
on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between
the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun. Growing
electrical stresses initiate discharges and the formation of a glowing plasma
sheath, appearing as the coma and tail
Click to expand...
LINK

Would not electrons of a high density and low electron temperature be EXPECTED?

As in

Figure 6 of that study, which used spherically symmetric outgassing, shows a relatively consistently varying density in the innermost coma, out to some 30-50 km, where the expanding plasma breaks up into filaments or "spikes" of thickness less than 10 km, possibly down to the simulation grid resolution of 2.2 km.
Click to expand...
LINK

also telling, just from the abstract, is the pulsing.

ABSTRACT Strong electron cooling on the neutral gas in cometary comae has been predicted for a long time, but actual measurements of low electron temperature are scarce. We present in situ measurements of plasma density, electron temperature and spacecraft potential by the Rosetta Langmuir probe instrument, LAP. Data acquired within a few hundred km from the nucleus are dominated by a warm component with electron temperature typically 5--10 eV at all heliocentric distances covered (1.25 to 3.83 AU). A cold component, with temperature no higher than about 0.1 eV, appears in the data as short (few to few tens of seconds) pulses of high probe current, indicating local enhancement of plasma density as well as a decrease in electron temperature. These pulses first appeared around 3 AU and were seen for longer periods close to perihelion. The general pattern of pulse appearance follows that of neutral gas and plasma density. We have not identified any periods with only cold electrons present. The electron flux to Rosetta was always dominated by higher energies, driving the spacecraft potential to order -10 V. The warm (5--10 eV) electron population is interpreted as electrons retaining the energy they obtained when released in the ionisation process. The sometimes observed cold populations with electron temperatures below 0.1 eV verify collisional cooling in the coma. The cold electrons were only observed together with the warm population. The general appearance of the cold population appears to be consistent with a Haser-like model, implicitly supporting also the coupling of ions to the neutral gas. The expanding cold plasma is unstable, forming filaments that we observe as pulses.
Click to expand...

Could almost call that a discharge! from the comet to the solar wind?
 
Also for JD116
The general appearance of the cold population appears to be consistent with a Haser-like model, implicitly supporting also the coupling of ions to the neutral gas. The expanding cold plasma is unstable, forming filaments that we observe as pulses.
Click to expand...

So why do YOU need solar photons/infrared energy to do all the "work" again?

as in the standard mainstream theory for comets

A comet is an icy small Solar System body that, when passing close to the Sun, warms and begins to release gases, a process called outgassing. This produces a visible atmosphere or coma, and sometimes also a tail. These phenomena are due to the effects of solar radiation and the solar wind acting upon the nucleus of the comet
Click to expand...
LINK
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Also for JD116

So why do YOU need solar photons/infrared energy to do all the "work" again?

as in the standard mainstream theory for comets

LINK
Click to expand...


Just as grains of dust are not boulders, plasma filaments are not lightning bolts. You constantly lift statements from the real science and attempt to equivocate them to fit never-observed EC/EU claims.

Sol, how big are the silicate/mineral particles the real scientists detect? What are the currents detected in those plasma filaments? You never seem to mention these important details. Why is that?
 
Sol88 said:
To quote Prediction #3: Electric Comets and the "Domino Effect"
Click to expand...

I think that after 12+ years, your buddies at thunderdolts would be able to put at least actual numbers to their statements.

nonsense said:
The evidence suggests that comets are highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun. As they rush toward the Sun, the voltage increases until at some point the comet nucleus begins to discharge. Electrons are stripped from a few points on the comet surface where the electric field is strongest. These “spark discharges” finely machine rocky material from the surface to form a “cathode jet” of negatively charged dust together with surface matter that has been torn apart to release ionized atoms and molecules, including oxygen. (Dec 29, 2004)
Click to expand...

my bolts
  • How much is "highly"?
  • What is the charge of the Sun?
  • Any evidence of actual "discharges"? (no filaments are not discharges!)

It is easy to make claims if you don't have to defend them, and it is easy to quote mine new papers and claim that they are evidence for thunderdolts' nonsense statements.
 
Sol88 said:
Ok, let's play the devils advocate from the mainstream point of view.

LINK

Would not electrons of a high density and low electron temperature be EXPECTED?

As in

LINK

also telling, just from the abstract, is the pulsing.



Could almost call that a discharge! from the comet to the solar wind?
Click to expand...

No, a discharge (at least in electrical terms) would be a, well, change (reduction) in a charge value not a simple slowing of charged particles.

From your own quote from the linked paper…
The sometimes observed cold populations with electron temperatures below 0.1 eV verify collisional cooling in the coma.
Click to expand...

Also from your own quote from the linked paper…
Strong electron cooling on the neutral gas in cometary comae…
Click to expand...
So collisional slowing of electrons in a neutral gas. As a neutral gas specifically isn’t charged it can’t be, well, discharged. Similarly, if the comet were to be ‘discharging’ (in the electrical sense) to the solar wind, that neutral gas would then gain some charge and no longer be a, well, neutral gas.

While my garden hose discharges water it is not the same thing as an electrical discharge.

You could “almost” call them electrical unicorn farts if you wanted and it would be equally as inaccurate as calling it “a discharge! from the comet to the solar wind”.

By all means please, provide the estimated charge of the comet, the projected rate of “discharge! from the comet to the solar wind” and thus the expected time for the comet to be fully, well, discharged.


Now, the space craft itself is charged…

From the linked paper…

As discussed in the Introduction, electrons released by photoionisation are expected to have a typical energy in the 12– 15 eV range, resulting in Te ∼ 10 eV if no cooling occurs. This is also sufficient for explaining the observed negative spacecraft potentials of the same order, as a simple model of the equilibrium potential of an object in a thermal plasma predicts negative potentials of a few times KTe/e, depending on the ion distribution and detailed object geometry
Click to expand...

And…

This is generally consistent with LAP densities for the warm electrons (see examples in Table 1), though much of the density at perihelion can sometimes reside in a cold population invisible to IES (Figure 2d and Section 3). The temperature ranges are broadly consistent, though somewhat higher in IES than what we typically derive from LAP sweeps, in the examples and elsewhere. As the Langmuir probes only measure total current, any fit of the electron current, such as those shown in Figure 2, will be more sensitive to the lowest energies than to the higher ones, while the case is opposite for IES, being directly mounted on the negatively charged spacecraft and hence only being exposed to a fraction of the low-energy electrons. The differing temperature estimates could thus in part be due to a combination of the two methods picking up characteristics of different parts of an energy distribution which is not Maxwellian, and in part due to effects of the repelling spacecraft potential. While at least the upper end of the κ range found by Broiles et al. (2016b) suggests quite Maxwellian behaviour, at the lowest energies a kappa model may not well describe the actual electron distribution, as is clear from the presence of a cold population in case (c).
Click to expand...
Resulting in the lower energy electrons being more effectively repelled by the overall spacecraft charge. As both the space craft and the electrons are negatively charged it can’t even be considered as the spacecraft being discharged. Now, with the LAP positively biased (by spacecraft power systems) as shown in the figure 6 you mention. It would be a discharging of the probe bias to the surrounding photoemission electrons. So yes you can get a deliberate electrical discharge out of it from the probe to the surrounding electrons. However as the probe bias is powered by the spacecraft power systems so too is that discharge.

Again, from the linked paper…

To these ends, LAP uses two spherical sensors of 50 mm diameter mounted at the tips of two booms asymmetrically protruding from the spacecraft body (Figure 1). The basic measured property is the current flowing from the probe to space due to collection of various particle species in the plasma and emission of photoelectrons and secondary electrons when a bias voltage is applied to the probe.
Click to expand...

The probe is discharging from the spacecraft power systems to space because that is what it is supposed to do.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A "mainstream" lie by linking to the deluded Thunderbolts cult

Sol88 said:
Ok, let's play the devils advocate from the mainstream point of view.
Click to expand...
11 July 2017 Sol88: A "mainstream point of view" lie by linking to the deluded Thunderbolts cult.
The ignorant, lying and deluded Thunderbolts web site will not present any "mainstream point of view". What you quote is their ignorant dogma and then you fantasize about it

Cold and warm electrons at comet 67P is nothing to do with your delusion that comets are rocks so
11 July 2017 Sol88: Yet another post irrelevant to your delusion that comets are rocks.

But does lead to:
11 July 2017 Sol88: What did your comets are rocks delusion predict abut the observation of cold and warm electrons at 67P?

6 July 2017 Sol88: What does a rotating charged body do (so far a display of complete ignorance of basic electromagnetism!)?
7 July 2017 Sol88: What did your comets are rocks delusion predict about the impact of Rosetta on 67P?[/
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A delusion about a "discharge" from the comet to the solar wind

Sol88 said:
Could almost call that a discharge! from the comet to the solar wind?
Click to expand...
11 July 2017 Sol88: A delusion about a "discharge" from the comet to the solar wind.
An observation of electrons in the coma which is a plasma containing ions and electrons (:eek:!) is not your delusion about electrical discharges on comets.

Also telling is the lie in your highlighting of the abstract. The coma is plasma. Plasma varies in density. We expect and detect current pluses in the probe from those variations.
Cold and warm electrons at comet 67P
Strong electron cooling on the neutral gas in cometary comae has been predicted for a long time, but actual measurements of low electron temperature are scarce. We present in situ measurements of plasma density, electron temperature and spacecraft potential by the Rosetta Langmuir probe instrument, LAP. Data acquired within a few hundred km from the nucleus are dominated by a warm component with electron temperature typically 5--10 eV at all heliocentric distances covered (1.25 to 3.83 AU). A cold component, with temperature no higher than about 0.1 eV, appears in the data as short (few to few tens of seconds) pulses of high probe current, indicating local enhancement of plasma density as well as a decrease in electron temperature. These pulses first appeared around 3 AU and were seen for longer periods close to perihelion. The general pattern of pulse appearance follows that of neutral gas and plasma density. We have not identified any periods with only cold electrons present. The electron flux to Rosetta was always dominated by higher energies, driving the spacecraft potential to order -10 V. The warm (5--10 eV) electron population is interpreted as electrons retaining the energy they obtained when released in the ionisation process. The sometimes observed cold populations with electron temperatures below 0.1 eV verify collisional cooling in the coma. The cold electrons were only observed together with the warm population. The general appearance of the cold population appears to be consistent with a Haser-like model, implicitly supporting also the coupling of ions to the neutral gas. The expanding cold plasma is unstable, forming filaments that we observe as pulses.
Click to expand...
The electrons are released from neutral atoms by the ionization process as seen by people smart enough to actually read the paper or know about comets.
The comet ionosphere is formed from the atmosphere mainly by photoionisation, charge exchange with solar wind ions, and, at least at times, also by impact ionisation by high-energy electrons (Cravens et al. 1987; Galand et al. 2016). The typical energy of recently released photoelectrons is expected to be 12–15 eV (Häberli et al. 1996; Galand et al. 2016). As the ionospheric plasma at a comet is not stationary but expanding, adiabatic cooling will play some role, but in a sufficiently dense neutral gas, the main cooling agent for electrons will be collisions with neutrals. The neutral gas is expected to have a temperature Tn of a few hundred K or even less (e.g. Tenishev et al. 2008). For highly active comets, like 1P/Halley at perihelion, collisional cooling of the electrons is expected to be so efficient as to keep Te close to Tn out to several thousand kilometers (Gan & Cravens 1990).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A lie about "YOU need solar photons/infrared energy ...?"

Sol88 said:
So why do YOU need solar photons/infrared energy to do all the "work" again?
Click to expand...
11 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about "YOU need solar photons/infrared energy to do all the "work" again?"
The physics is that sunlight will ionize neutral atom, ions in the solar wind will ionize neutral atoms and even impact by high energy electrons will ionize neutral atoms. The paper that you have been citing states this :eye-poppi!

We do not need to fall for the ignorant delusions of a cult to explain what is observed for comets.
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 7 now 8 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: Ignorance or lie in highlighting of text from the Wikipedia comet article

Sol88 said:
LINK
Click to expand...
11 July 2017 Sol88: Abysmal ignorance or a lie in highlighting of text from the Wikipedia article on comets!
You have known about the ionization of comet coma for many years, e.g. the x-rays from the coma. So you know that outgassing is not the end of the formation of the coma. Implying a lie or persisting in abysmal ignorance about comets. The article even mentions the photodissociation & photoionization of H2O in the coma!
Comet
A comet is an icy small Solar System body that, when passing close to the Sun, warms and begins to release gases, a process called outgassing. This produces a visible atmosphere or coma, and sometimes also a tail. These phenomena are due to the effects of solar radiation and the solar wind acting upon the nucleus of the comet.
...
The coma is generally made of  H2O and dust, with water making up to 90% of the volatiles that outflow from the nucleus when the comet is within 3 to 4 astronomical units (450,000,000 to 600,000,000 km; 280,000,000 to 370,000,000 mi) of the Sun.[47] The  H2O parent molecule is destroyed primarily through photodissociation and to a much smaller extent photoionization, with the solar wind playing a minor role in the destruction of water compared to photochemistry.[47]
Click to expand...
 
From the admittedly scientifically unqualified Sol88:
.....and of course good 'ol Tim states that all in electromagnetism is known and then something like this makes 'ol Tim's sphincter pucker!
Click to expand...

You do realise, don't you, that Tim Thompson knows far more about astrophysics than you, or the idiot Thornhill, or the equally dense Talbott will ever know, yes? Why do you think he had a career in such a difficult subject? So that uneducated pillocks like you could come along and criticise? Or Burkes like the aforementioned eejits, T & T?
Grow up; get an education. Then you can criticise. Until then, as has ever been the case with this electric comet woo, you have zip. Eh? Try to lern scienz. Yes?
 
Sol88 said:
and of course good 'ol Tim states that all in electromagnetism is known ...
Click to expand...
and of course this is a lie as reading the post from 2004 at CosmoQuest shows! What Tim Thompson actually writes is that electromagnetism is established
At the core are the well established disciplines, like classical mechanics, thermodynamics, electromagnetism & so on.
Click to expand...
It is the Thunderbolts cult who are claiming that established electromagnetism is wrong because they want the Sun to have a strong enough electric field to turn comet jets into their delusion of electrical discharges. This violates basic, fundamental physics as Tim pointed out many years ago.
 
@ The Man;
You are seriously wasting your time trying to explain stuff like that. They do not understand basic science. Look at this 'electric comet' woo! How is this idiot Thornhill creating OH (which machines, as well as people, are mistaking for H2O!!!)? The bloke is obviously scientifically illiterate! That is basic science, and he fails it. However, the likes of Sol, et al, choose to believe this cretin, rather than people who do actually understand such things. Shame.
My opinion? They were crap at science at school, and took some sh*te for it. They now have a chip on their shoulder about being rubbish at science. Soooo, whenever a cretin like Thornhill invents some nonsense, they all come running. It's easier to understand than actual science.
Jeez, I could go on. Ask these idiots where they think Saturn used to be! That tells you everything you need to know about the scientifically illiterate 'electric universe' cult.
IMHO anybody that believes that garbage should be removed from the gene pool. However, that is only an opinion.
 
I gots time to waste. Though the explanations are hardly for them. At the least for me, to be sure I understand it enough to explain it. At best for someone who reads the thread and perhaps comes away with a better understating of something, even if just how the LAP probe works,
 
A couple of posts later in that 2004 thread is The snippet that you link to is brain-dead stupid, of questionable honesty, and an unadulterated example of propaganda & self-promotion
That is about a The Myth of Magnetic Reconnection Thunderbolts page that starts off by lying about electrical engineers who in general believe the magnetic reconnection is the best thing since sliced bread! That page basically accuses "plasma cosmologists" as being stupid or ignorant, e.g. not knowing the difference between current sheets and double layers.
 
tusenfem said:
I think that after 12+ years, your buddies at thunderdolts would be able to put at least actual numbers to their statements.



my bolts
  • How much is "highly"?
  • What is the charge of the Sun?
  • Any evidence of actual "discharges"? (no filaments are not discharges!)

It is easy to make claims if you don't have to defend them, and it is easy to quote mine new papers and claim that they are evidence for thunderdolts' nonsense statements.
Click to expand...

Are you able to explain what's going on here then?

ABSTRACT Strong electron cooling on the neutral gas in cometary comae has been predicted for a long time, but actual measurements of low electron temperature are scarce. We present in situ measurements of plasma density, electron temperature and spacecraft potential by the Rosetta Langmuir probe instrument, LAP. Data acquired within a few hundred km from the nucleus are dominated by a warm component with electron temperature typically 5--10 eV at all heliocentric distances covered (1.25 to 3.83 AU). A cold component, with temperature no higher than about 0.1 eV, appears in the data as short (few to few tens of seconds) pulses of high probe current, indicating local enhancement of plasma density as well as a decrease in electron temperature. These pulses first appeared around 3 AU and were seen for longer periods close to perihelion. The general pattern of pulse appearance follows that of neutral gas and plasma density. We have not identified any periods with only cold electrons present. The electron flux to Rosetta was always dominated by higher energies, driving the spacecraft potential to order -10 V. The warm (5--10 eV) electron population is interpreted as electrons retaining the energy they obtained when released in the ionisation process. The sometimes observed cold populations with electron temperatures below 0.1 eV verify collisional cooling in the coma. The cold electrons were only observed together with the warm population. The general appearance of the cold population appears to be consistent with a Haser-like model, implicitly supporting also the coupling of ions to the neutral gas. The expanding cold plasma is unstable, forming filaments that we observe as pulses.
Click to expand...

'Cause ol mate

Of course, the question is what is the driving force for comet activity at such large heliocentric distances? In my theoretical framework of electron-stripping, the driving force is a voltage differential between the comet its surrounding plasma sheath. In this episode we have seen two different articles reporting on negative-charged nanograins traveling from the nucleus in a sunward direction, and positive-charged nanograins traveling from the nucleus in the anti-sunward direction. We have also come across reports describing increase electron beams and fluxes in the vicinity of the nucleus. The overall implication of these observations is that there is charge separation, hence the presence of a voltage differential as illustrated by electric fields accelerating charged particles. There is enough voltage differential for low ionization metals to be ionized while residing in the lattice structures of minerals and silicates for the electrons to be stripped away of the lattice and accelerated.

The results are electrons appreciably accelerated away from the surface of the nucleus, which we detect as ion beams and fluxes, causing ion impact dissociation on other volatiles, mainly because the associated electric fields accelerating the charge particles are filamentary in nature. Now, as the electrons are accelerated away, the metals in the lattice structure become positive-charged and smaller in size, destabilizing the lattice structure to the point of collapse, upon which fragmentation becomes a dominant mechanism. This electron-stripping process can be a source of both electrons and positive-charged nanograins. In addition, because of the complex electrical environment charge separation occurs, and in conjunction with charge exchange, negative-charged nanograins can be also expected to travel towards the sun-ward direction, as previously discussed.
Click to expand...
LINK

Maybe comets are not dustyballs of icecream, maybe they are ROCK.
 
Sol88 said:
Are you able to explain what's going on here then?
Click to expand...

It is explained in the paper you linked and the specific points from it I noted before.


'Cause ol mate

LINK

Maybe comets are not dustyballs of icecream, maybe they are ROCK.
Click to expand...

This latter quote is incongruent with the former and the relevant data. "electron beams" would result in localized higher energy electrons in generally lower energy populations. However, the paper linked and noted before as well as the relevant data demonstrates localized lower energy electrons (the filaments noted) in generally higher energy electron populations. The explanation is simply that not only doesn't the paper cited (before and in the first quote) support the claims made in the second quote it (and the data) directly opposes those assertions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom