Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

Sol88 said:

Bedrock?? Like as if in bedrock?

Click to expand...

Reality Check said:

Nothing in this mainstream journal supports your delusions that comets are rocks, etc.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 469, Issue Suppl_2, 21 July 2017

Click to expand...

Explosive jet erosion from exposed cliff faces also acts to break off parts of the weakened bedrock material, which then accumulate as talus deposits at the cliff bases (Groussin et al. 2015; Pajola et al. 2016b).

Click to expand...

6 SUMMARY Our geomorphologic mapping reveals a complex terrain of consolidated bedrock material overlain by sedimentary deposits. The northern half of the nucleus is covered in sedimentary materials, while the landscapes of the Southern hemisphere are relatively free of sediment, revealing the underlying bedrock of the nucleus. Putative flow deposits are located around the equatorial regions, suggesting that sediment transport processes and landscape evolution occur on 67P/C-G by insolation-driven processes.

Click to expand...

Abstract. Dust on and near the surface of small planetary bodies (e.g. asteroids, the Moon, Mars’ moons) is subject to gravity, cohesion and electrostatic forces. Due to the very low gravity on small bodies, the behavior of small dust grains is driven by non-gravitational forces. Recent work by Scheeres et al. has shown that cohesion, specifically van der Waals force, is significant for grains on asteroids. In addition to van der Waals cohesion, dust grains also experience electrostatic forces, arising from their interaction with each other (through tribocharging) and the solar wind plasma (which produces both grain charging and an external electric field). Electrostatic forces influence both the interactions of grains on the surface of small bodies as well as the dynamics of grains in the plasma sheath above the surface. While tribocharging between identical dielectric grains remains poorly understood, we have recently expanded an existing charge transfer model to consider continuous size distributions of grains and are planning an experiment to test the charge predictions produced. Additionally, we will present predictions of the size of dust grains that are capable of detaching from the surface of small bodies.

Click to expand...

Abstract Soon after the Rosetta Orbiter rendezvoused with comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at a solar distance of ~3.5 AU and began to fly in triangular-shaped trajectories around it, the Ion and Electron Sensor detected negative particles at energies from about 100 eV/q to over 18 keV/q. The lower energy particles came from roughly the direction of the comet; the higher-energy particles came from approximately the solar direction. These particles are interpreted as clusters of molecules, most likely water, which we refer to as nanograins because their inferred diameters are less than 100 nm. Acceleration of the grains away from the comet is through gas drag by the expanding cometary atmosphere, while acceleration back to the vicinity of the comet is caused partly by solar radiation pressure but mainly by the solar wind electric field. These observations represent the first measurements of energetic charged submicron-sized dust or ice grains (nanograins) in a cometary environment. .

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

A homogeneous nucleus for comet 67P/Churyumov– Gerasimenko from its gravity field..

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

So what would happen to the MUPUS-PEN if it had hit bedrock, one has to wonder!

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

You getting your reading material from...

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Jets, ay! ...

Click to expand...

1. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are rocks so where did that rock come from?
2. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted composition of comets from their origins?
3. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted density of comets?
4. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is the measured density of comets?
5. 18 August 2017 Sol88: State the physics that explains any density difference showing that the measurements are matched.
6. 22 August 2017 Sol88: Why are all main-belt asteroids not comets according to your comet delusions?
7. 22 August 2017 Sol88: Why are all asteroids with cometary obits not comets as in your comet delusions?

In the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® comets are not primordial. They are debris produced during violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history — a phase that persisted into early human history.

Click to expand...

Reality Check said:

23 August 2017 Sol88: Deluded comments about papers on ice and dust comets do not support his comet delusions.
Astronomers using words from geology to describe features of comets made of ices and dust does not support his comet delusions.

Click to expand...

3.3.1 Interpretation
The process(es) by which the bouldered plains form are less clear than the morphologically similar talus deposits as they have no
topographic signature or nearby source (i.e. cliffs). They may form via in situ thermal weathering of a previously consolidated bedrock. Large thermal gradients and sublimation events over di- urnal cycles can further weaken an already pre-fractured bedrock. Collapse of bedrock materials that outcrop from beneath plains terrains would lead to large deposits of boulders appearing to over- lay smooth/cauliflower plains materials. Alternatively, they may be remnant talus deposits, now marking locations where cliffs used to be located, which subsequently back-wasted to now distant locations.

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

So just words?

Click to expand...

1. 18 August 2017 Sol88: Smearing astronomers with his comets are rocks, etc. delusions.
2. 18 August 2017 Sol88: Insults astronomers by linking them with his ignorant comet delusions.
3. 18 August 2017 Sol88: A display of ignorance of what he has read to derail from his comet delusions so will not be answered.
4. 18 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about a Rosetta blog that is not about nor supports his comet delusions.
5. 18 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about a paper that is not about nor supports his comet delusions.
6. 18 August 2017 Sol88: A link to his ignorant, deluded and lying Thunderbolts cult.
7. 18 August 2017 Sol88: Wal Thornhill and David Talbott published lies about "correct" predictions for Depp Impact in a 2007 book.
8. 21 August 2017 Sol88: I did not answer an ignorant and deluded derail [but I am documenting them!].
9. 21 August 2017 Sol88: Mentions "nucleus bulk density" that shows how completely insane the comets are rock, etc. delusions are!
10. 21 August 2017 Sol88: "Interesting" ignorance because main-belt comets show that his comets are rocks delusions are just that!
11. 21 August 2017 Sol88: "Curiouser" ignorance because main-belt comets show that his comets are rocks delusions are just that!
12. 21 August 2017 Sol88: Inane lying about real science that is not his comets are rocks, etc. delusions.
13. 21 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about Jewitt et. al.
14. 22 August 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing papers on comets made of ices and dust in a thread about his comet delusions, e.g. they are rocks.
15. 22 August 2017 Sol88: Repeats the idiocy of citing papers on comets made of ices and dust in a thread about his comet delusions, e.g. they are rocks.
16. 22 August 2017 Sol88: A double delusion that comets are only dust and that dust is "very similar to Carbonaceous chondritic meteorites".
17. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Deluded comments about papers on ice and dust comets do not support his comet delusions.
18. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are not made of rock so the question is ignorant and deluded.
19. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Does not know he cited a journal issue on comets made of ices and dust, specifically 67P!
20. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Repeated idiocy of citing papers on comets made of ices and dust in a thread on his comet are rocks, etc. delusions.
21. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Ignorant fantasies and lies about the papers he cites on ices and dust comets.
22. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Inane obsession with the word bedrock in a paper about comets made of ices and dust.

Sol88 said:

So what would happen to the MUPUS-PEN if it had hit bedrock, one has to wonder!

Click to expand...

tusenfem said:

No, one has to test like Marczewski et al. did, not wonder.

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Still wondering

MUPUS-PEN is what we are after. Would you know of any papers where they have tested into rock?

Wondering if they tested it into "rock" hard ice?

Click to expand...

Sol88 said:

Would you know of any papers where they have tested into rock?

Click to expand...

The resulting weighted average volume and bulk density are thus (18.7 ± 0.2) km3 and (533 ± 6) kg m−3, respectively. This bulk density value, about half the density of water ice, implies that the nucleus is highly porous.
For reasonable dust material densities one can relate the porosity of the nucleus to the dust-to-ice ratio. The cometary dust particles may be extremely porous and fluffy objects, but the silicate material densities are likely to be around 3,000 kg m−3, as determined by the Stardust mission15. Organic carbonaceous particles may have material densities of 2,200 kg m−3. Assuming a ratio of 1:1 for both aggregates would account for an average global material density of 2,600 kg m−3, in accordance with earlier estimates16.

Click to expand...

The 70% and 75% porosity curves in Fig. 1a require a dust volume of 14% and 16.5%, respectively, for the average dust material density of 2,600 kg m−3. These porosities yield average dust-to-ice mass ratios of 2.4 and 5.3, respectively, in Fig. 1b. The dust-to-ice mass ratio is 1.9 to 14 for the full range of credible dust material densities between 2,200 kg m−3 and 3,000 kg m−3. This means that a nucleus with 70% to 75% porosity can have up to fourteen times more dust than ice by mass, but can also have up to twice as much ice than dust by volume.
The extremes are the 50% and 80% porosity curves. These porosity cases do not result in reasonable dust-to-ice mass ratios. The dust at the
average dust material density would fill the remaining volume of 20% completely for the 80% porosity case. This would represent a highly porous dusty body with no ice. The 50% porosity case represents a porous icy body with an ice content 18 times higher than for dust by volume. Both cases are considered unrealistic.
The GIADA instrument on Rosetta reports an inferred dust-to-ice mass ratio18 of 4 ± 1. Applying this value to the direct surface compo- sition would constrain the surface porosity to 72% to 74%, well within the reasonable range of dust material densities.
If the dust-to-ice mass ratio of 4 is correct18, then the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko appears to be a very porous, very dusty body with a dust content by volume about two times larger than the ice content by volume.

Click to expand...

DiscussionFluffyparticlesareporousaggregatesofsubmicrongrainspro-ducedfromthenucleus.Theyrangeinsizefrom0.2to2.5mmandtheirequivalentbulkdensityisupto1kgm−3.Theyarecharged,fragmented,anddeceleratedbythespacecraftnegativepotentialandenterGIADAinshowersoffragmentsatspeeds<1ms−1(Fulleetal.,2015a).Wesuggestthattheseuffyparticlesresemblethe67PparticlescollectedbyCOSIMA(Schulzetal.2015)havingatensilestrengthsuchthattheycouldbreakapartonimpact.Thisbehaviorisconsistentwithuffyparti-clefragmentation(Fulleetal.2015a).

Click to expand...

Conclusions. In the framework of the presented model, which can be considered common in terms of assumptions and physical parameters in the cometary community, the dust removal by a gas drag force is not a plausible physical mechanism. The sublimation of not only water ice, but also of super-volatile ice (i.e., CO) is unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding to 1.3 AU. Awayoutof this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.

Click to expand...