The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Well, if the comet is charged and trying to seek equilibrium with the surrounding plasma it will be losing electrons! ...

Sol88's usual demented fantasies and lies about comets.
Sol88 insanity that "charged" means that a charged surface will lose electrons - a positively charged surface will grab free electrons to gain electrons !

We have detected negatively charged dust only many kilometers away from the surface of 67P. The electrons on these dust particles are picked up from the interaction of the solar wind and sunlight with the coma, not Sol88's delusion of magic electrons from the surface.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

All that's needed!

Sol88 persists with his insane "All that's needed" lie when he is lying about his demented comet dogma which needs a solar electric field and that solar electric field needs to be strong enough to do the rest of his insane dogma (electric discharge machining of the surface, jets = electrical discharges, tear apart rock into dust and gases).

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 idiotically emphasizes that all he has is the demented dogma from his cult that has not changed for maybe decades (1970's?). For example:

• Maybe a century of density measurements give that comets are less dense than water and so are not rock this Whipple's model of the 1950's. But Sol88 and his cult persist with their demented dogma that comets are rock, etc. 70 years later!
• Deep impact in 2005 showed that Tempel 1 was 20 to 50% ices. But Sol88 and his cult persist with their demented dogma that comets are rock, etc. 15 years later!
• Rosetta in 2015 showed that 67P was at least 17% ices. But Sol88 and his cult persist with their demented dogma that comets are rock, etc. 5 years later!

Sol88 spews out his insane insult of M.A’Hearn and all astronomers yet again !

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88's usual insane about comets that we see in The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 13 Feb 2020).

This is Sol88's persistent insane lie that the fact that gases are emitted from comet was the evidence that comets are mostly ices. That was a reasonable assumption from the origin of comets in the early solar system which is revisited since Tempel 1 and 67P gave minimums of 20% for water ices and 17% for all ices respectively.

That "mostly ices" also suggests that Sol88 has the insane delusion that all of the gases from comets are produced by all of the ices sublimating in 1 orbit !. A small fraction of the ices sublimate each orbit.

Cometary Hydrogen Cloud

Quote:

Surrounding every moderately active comet is a sparse but extensive envelope of neutral hydrogen atoms. The hydrogen is liberated when ultraviolet radiation from the Sun splits the water vapour molecules released from the nucleus of the comet into the consitituent components, oxygen and hydrogen.

The size of the hydrogen envelope can be vast (for example, the hydrogen envelope surrounding comet Hale Bopp was 100 million km wide!), extending much further than the comet’s visible tails. For all of its enormity, however, the hydrogen cloud is not visible from the Earth, as it is only detectable in ultraviolet light. For this reason, the best views of cometary hydrogen clouds have come from the SOHO satellite, located about 1.5 million kms sunward of the Earth.

There is no "comets must be mostly ice" in that article.

The next posts are Sol88 spewing out his usual insanity.

• There are asteroids that sometimes have comet-like behavior due to non-cometary physics: impacts, spin up and sublimation of pockets of ices.
  No asteroid has been seen to have all of the properties of a comet, e.g. a density less than water, a composition with a good proportion of ices, coma + ion tail + dust tail.
• An insane lie that jonesdave116 called A’Hearn a liar.
  jonesdave116 stated the real world fact the none of the rock required in Sol88's demented dogma has been detected at comets.
  No comet has been found to be solid rock with Sol88's dogma of "little or no ices".
  No comet has been found to have dust matching Sol88's dogma. Stardust returned dust that was formed in space - no limestone, basalt, granite, sandstone, etc. Rosetta detected loose dust ("fluffy") particles.
  Sol88 has the insane insult of all astronomers saying that Sol88's demented rock is detected at comets, especially A’Hearn: Sol88 spews out his insane insult of M.A’Hearn and all astronomers yet again !
• Sol88's persistent insane lie about The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications whose "the nucleus would be a highly porous stony agglomerate, essentially devoid of volitiles" is that 67P has at least 17% ices !
• Personal, irrelevant "Yeah, Patzold’s paper" delusions.
• Sol88's insane lie about MUPUS which detected a surface layer constant with sintered ices.
• Sol88's "comets are rock" demented dogma
• Sol88's double layers at comets insanity.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Which side of the comet is the dust, that shouldn't be there in your woo, coming from? Well, that would be the sunlit side, wouldn't it? That is the area that is being heated, funnily enough. And what sign will the surface dust be on the sunlit side? Have a look at Nordheim's paper. Hint: it isn't negative. Which leaves.....?

Simultaneous Observation of Negatively and Positively Charged Nanograins at Comet 67P/Churyumov‐Gerasimenko



You up for a discussion, jd116?

Not sure on where to start really, so...

This is a good a place as any.

Quote:

3. Observations

From 19:30 to 22:30 UT on 19 September 2014, both the electron and ion detectors observed an enhancement of counts up to the 17 keV/q detection limit. T
This enhancement was confined in azimuthal direction (Figure 1). At this time, comet 67P/C�]G was 3.34 AU away from the Sun, and Rosetta was 28.18 km from the comet. The comet was considered weakly outgassing since IES was able to observe the SW even relatively close to the comet, and the comet was beyond 2.7 AU (Martin & Livio, 2013).the Sun's snowline (water sublimates within this radial distance). From Figure 1, particles within the circled region in both plots are deflected in roughly equal but opposite directions from the Sun's azimuthal position in the IES instrument frame.

So what was sublimating? Consider,

Quote:

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. A way out of this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity
on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

So sublimation is a bust!

So that leaves us with limited option in the mainstream toolbox!

Oh, hang on...

Quote:

We have investigated through simulation the electrostatic charging of the nucleus of Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko during periods of weak outgassing activity. Specifically, we have modeled the surface potential and electric field at the surface of the nucleus during the initial Rosetta rendezvous at 3.5 AU and the release of the Philae lander at 3 AU. We have also investigated the possibility of dust acceleration and ejection above the nucleus due to electrostatic forces. Finally, we discuss these modeling results in the context of possible observations by instruments on both the Rosetta orbiter and the Philae lander.

We have shown that charged dust grains with radii o50 nm may be electrostatically ejected from the nucleus at most SZAs

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity

Seems pretty open and shut.

What do you think stops these Surface , Magnetic Field Aligned Ambipolar, Hall and Polarization Electric Fields, so that gas drag by sublimation becomes the dominate force on both POSITIVE (+) and NEGATIVE (-) charged dust before it reaches the Solar Wind Electric Field?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

In the coma. So, we can ignore that.

Your pretty shore about that, jonesdave116?

Not charged at the surface?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Just for fun, let's make things a bit more interesting with Kristie's latest paper:

Simultaneous Observation of Negatively and Positively Charged Nanograins at Comet 67P/Churyumov‐Gerasimenko.

Many thanks tusenfem, appreciated.

Science ay.

Would you model this dusty plasma in any up coming papers? I'm sure some of your already published papers may gain a bit insight now this - & + dust is confirmed.


Although, it's been suspected for some time...

Quote:

The second type of simulation we performed focused on charged nanograins of dust, and uses parameters measured in Fulle et al.[3]and Rotundi et al.[5]by the GIADA dust instrument[1]on board Rosetta.

Quote:

Abstract
The Alice far-ultraviolet spectrograph in operation around the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko on the Rosetta spacecraft experiences an anomalistic feature (AF) that is ubiquitous at comet separations less than 450. km. This feature is highly temporally variable and displays no relation to any studied parameters with the exception of comet separation. This paper tests several possible causes with simulations and finds that positive ions produce a partial explanation for the anomaly, but still finds no definitive source of the AF.

An Investigation Into Potential Causes of the Anomalistic Feature Observed by the Rosetta Alice Spectrograph Around 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko


Further,

Quote:

A quasi-neutral hybrid simulation of the interaction of the solar wind with the atmosphere of a comet is used together with a test particle simulation of cometary ions and dust to compute trajectories and velocity distribution functions of charged particles, starting outside the diamagnetic cavity at 150 km cometocentric distance. The simulations are run with parameters suited to make predictions for comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko when it is at a heliocentric distance of 1.45 AU.

It is found that the shape of the ion trajectories depends on the location of the source, and that a velocity distribution that is observed at a given point in space is influenced by the spatial structure of the source.

Charged dust grains with radii in the 1–10 nm range are accelerated from the nucleus to a distance of 2:9 . 104 km in between 15 min and 2 h approximately. Dust particles smaller than 10 nm in radius are accelerated to speeds over 10 km/s.

Acceleration of ions and nanodust at a comet in the solar wind

Interesting stuff.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Then everybody else is wrong.

All the various instrument teams that estimated the volatile loss were wrong. Including from another spacecraft. And from Earth-based observation. All the plasma simulations that match well the outgassing rates, have been fluked. The non-gravitational effects that have been modeled, and match with the observed outgassing rates, were also fluked.

Far more likely that one team are wrong, than a whole bunch of them, when the outgassing rates match models based on those calculated rates.

I'm sure they'll sort it out. And it'll be the fallback calculations. That is my 'Mystic Meg' prediction for the day.

One team????

So far you've poo pooed a couple teams.

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko Yu. V. Skorov, L. Rezac, P. Hartogh, and H. U. Keller


The Nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko – Part I: The global view – nucleus mass, mass-loss, porosity, and implications Martin Pätzold, Thomas P Andert, Matthias Hahn, Jean-Pierre Barriot, Sami W Asmar, Bernd Häusler, Michael K Bird, Silvia Tellmann, Janusz Oschlisniok, Kerstin Peter

Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn

Structure and elastic parameters of the near surface of Abydos site on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, as obtained by SESAME/CASSE listening to the MUPUS insertion phase M.Knapmeyera H.-H.FischerbJ.KnollenbergaK.J.SeidenstickeraK.Thielc W.ArnolddeC.FaberaD.Möhlmanna1


For starters

Funnily enough, all the above call Whipple’s model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioning cometary nuclei as mostly ice into question...

[Sol88]

Quote:

Far more likely that one team are wrong, than a whole bunch of them, when the outgassing rates match models based on those calculated rates.

Far more likely, they are apply the correct data to the wrong model!

because

Quote:

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

Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn


I'm sure they'll sort it out. And it'll be the fallback "outgassing" calculations. That is my 'Mystic Meg' prediction for the day.

Brace yourselves for a massive by Jonesdave116

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Cometary Hydrogen Cloud

There is no "comets must be mostly ice" in that article.

The next posts are Sol88 spewing out his usual insanity.

• There are asteroids that sometimes have comet-like behavior due to non-cometary physics: impacts, spin up and sublimation of pockets of ices.
  No asteroid has been seen to have all of the properties of a comet, e.g. a density less than water, a composition with a good proportion of ices, coma + ion tail + dust tail.
• An insane lie that jonesdave116 called A’Hearn a liar.
  jonesdave116 stated the real world fact the none of the rock required in Sol88's demented dogma has been detected at comets.
  No comet has been found to be solid rock with Sol88's dogma of "little or no ices".
  No comet has been found to have dust matching Sol88's dogma. Stardust returned dust that was formed in space - no limestone, basalt, granite, sandstone, etc. Rosetta detected loose dust ("fluffy") particles.
  Sol88 has the insane insult of all astronomers saying that Sol88's demented rock is detected at comets, especially A’Hearn: Sol88 spews out his insane insult of M.A’Hearn and all astronomers yet again !
• Sol88's persistent insane lie about The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications whose "the nucleus would be a highly porous stony agglomerate, essentially devoid of volitiles" is that 67P has at least 17% ices !
• Personal, irrelevant "Yeah, Patzold’s paper" delusions.
• Sol88's insane lie about MUPUS which detected a surface layer constant with sintered ices.
• Sol88's "comets are rock" demented dogma
• Sol88's double layers at comets insanity.

Quote:

Surrounding every moderately active comet is a sparse but extensive envelope of neutral hydrogen atoms. The hydrogen is liberated when ultraviolet radiation from the Sun splits the water vapour molecules released from the nucleus of the comet into the consitituent components, oxygen and hydrogen.

Well, we have

Quote:

Cometary electrons eventually end up neutralizing the solar wind protons, and solar wind electrons eventually neutralize the cometary ions.

Quote:

There is no "comets must be mostly ice" in that article.

As for the rest of your somewhat unusual ramblings on comets and asteroids

Quote:

In summary, the population of small bodies in our solar system today, including both minor planets and classical comets, is far less well-delineated into distinct groups of objects than the classical paradigm might have led one to believe in the past.

classical paradigm??? That comets are MOSTLY ice and asteroids are MOSTLY rock!

Not turning out so well is itme 'ol comets are not rock!

Is the Nucleus of a comet charged, reality check?

annnnnnd....que 6 pages of spam about

Quote:

Sol88's usual insane persistent lies

about quoting real peer reviewed papers

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Funnily enough, all the above call Whipple’s model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioning cometary nuclei as mostly ice into question...

Wow, it's not like we have told you that like a bezillion times in this thread.
It is YOU who keeps on claiming that we (should) use Whipple as mainstream scientists.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Would you model this dusty plasma in any up coming papers? I'm sure some of your already published papers may gain a bit insight now this - & + dust is confirmed.

I will do nothing with those grains, as they have absolutely no influence on the things that I am discussing. They are to sparse and too heavy to have any influence on the results of my published papers.

So, how about the EC published papers?

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

annnnnnd....que 6 pages of spam about about misquoting real peer reviewed papers

FTFY

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

One team????

So far you've poo pooed a couple teams.

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko Yu. V. Skorov, L. Rezac, P. Hartogh, and H. U. Keller


The Nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko – Part I: The global view – nucleus mass, mass-loss, porosity, and implications Martin Pätzold, Thomas P Andert, Matthias Hahn, Jean-Pierre Barriot, Sami W Asmar, Bernd Häusler, Michael K Bird, Silvia Tellmann, Janusz Oschlisniok, Kerstin Peter

Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn

Structure and elastic parameters of the near surface of Abydos site on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, as obtained by SESAME/CASSE listening to the MUPUS insertion phase M.Knapmeyera H.-H.FischerbJ.KnollenbergaK.J.SeidenstickeraK.Thielc W.ArnolddeC.FaberaD.Möhlmanna1


For starters

Funnily enough, all the above call Whipple’s model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioning cometary nuclei as mostly ice into question...

Which is just more lying.

Lie #1: I posted Skorov's reply to my email.

Lie #2: I told you why Patzold MUST be wrong. Be patient, and wait for him, or others, to address this. Either way, it has nothing to do with your woo.

Lie #3: A'Hearn has said nothing to do with your woo. And there is no rock at comets. As he well knew. And you continue to lie about. I keep asking you - show us the detection of rock in a paper. Which instrument? What sort of rock? If you can't do that, then quit with the lying.

Lie #4: The MUPUS paper explicitly rules out rock!. This has been explained to you. So, continued claims that that paper backs up your woo are just lies. As usual.

Seems to me that all you have is lies. No science. No evidence.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Simultaneous Observation of Negatively and Positively Charged Nanograins at Comet 67P/Churyumov‐Gerasimenko



You up for a discussion, jd116?

Not sure on where to start really, so...

This is a good a place as any.



So what was sublimating? Consider,

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity
on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

So sublimation is a bust!

So that leaves us with limited option in the mainstream toolbox!

Oh, hang on... Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity

Seems pretty open and shut.

What do you think stops these Surface , Magnetic Field Aligned Ambipolar, Hall and Polarization Electric Fields, so that gas drag by sublimation becomes the dominate force on both POSITIVE (+) and NEGATIVE (-) charged dust before it reaches the Solar Wind Electric Field?

Makes no sense whatsoever. Sublimation is seen. End of story. And if all the stuff you are writing about were possible, every single asteroid would be surrounding by visible clouds of dust. They aren't. End of story.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

about quoting real peer reviewed papers

Nope. About totally misunderstanding and lying about peer-reviewed papers.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Far more likely, they are apply the correct data to the wrong model!

because Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn


I'm sure they'll sort it out. And it'll be the fallback "outgassing" calculations. That is my 'Mystic Meg' prediction for the day.

Brace yourselves for a massive by Jonesdave116

Really? Which model should they be using? I've yet to see you offer one. When can we expect to see it? All we get are lies, and a failure to understand basic science. Will that ever stop? Unlikely, I'd say, as long as you are allowed to continually troll this forum.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Lie #1: I posted Skorov's reply to my email.

Well, I guess Sol88 keeps the same standards as he wants for mainstream scientists. We must use Whipple, and he will not see that Skorov could be wrong.
It's a intriguing but nauseating kind of justified balance.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Simultaneous Observation of Negatively and Positively Charged Nanograins at Comet 67P/Churyumov‐Gerasimenko
...

The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 13 Feb 2020).

• "Field Aligned Ambipolar" electric fields exist in the coma !
  Some "gas drag by sublimation" in charged particles insanity.
• An insane "Not charged at the surface?" question.
  He quoted that paper is about the weak outgassing period when the solar wind reaches the surface of 67P and charges dust grains. Thus there are charged grains at the surface.
• insane questions about real science, ignoring his demented dogma.
  Unlikely to be answered because everyone here knows that this is an obsessed, gullible, ignorant follower of a demented cult who believes that comets are rock blasted from planets including recent times by electric discharges between planets + an invisible massive solar electric field that he persistently lies is the electric field in comet coma/surfaces + jets are electric discharges + electric discharge machining of the surface + his cult's electric sun insanity + etc.. Thus answering his demented questions will be a waste of time.
• Usual lies about posters.
  Then everybody else is wrong is jonesdave116 stating the obvious fact that the amount of possible "fallback" is constrained by observations by multiple teams using different instruments.
• Sol88 spews out his insane insult of M.A’Hearn and all astronomers yet again !
• Replies to Sol88 blatantly lies about a comet article and the next posts are Sol88 spewing out his usual insanity with even more insanity.
  Detected water molecules at comets are disassociated at comets into detected neutral hydrogen by textbook physics.
  Sol88 insanely rants about electrons, etc. !

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

annnnnnd....que 6 pages of spam about about quoting real peer reviewed papers

Sol88's usual lies about posters and posts and even his posts!
The issue is not "quoting real peer reviewed papers" which would be a valid act to support real comets or debunk his demented comets. The issue is Sol88's insane lying abut the real peer reviewed papers.

We have the many papers measuring the dentistry of comets to be less than water and thus not his demented rock (N.B. the insanity is not just that comets are rock).
We have the many papers measuring that comets emit gas that has to be from sublimating ices and so comets are not his demented rock.
We have the physical fact that Deep Impact ejecta was 20-50% water.
We have the evidence that 67P is at least 17% ices.
When we cite or quote real peer reviewed papers we are not lying about them!

Sol88 has lied for over 10 years in maybe hundreds of posts about what he quotes from scientific papers. That is an insane level of lying.
Sol88 lies because this is a thread about his demented comet dogma and he is quoting from mainstream ices and dust papers irrelevant to his dogma. Sol88 is lying just by citing the papers.
Sol88 lies by quote mining the papers.
Sol88 lies about the contents of the papers, e.g. a paper claims that dust grains of a certain size are not gas dragged and Sol88 lies that it is all dust!
Sol88 is insanely obsessed with certain papers and quotes them again and again, even when an author has said the paper is flawed! Lie #1: I posted Skorov's reply to my email, etc. by jonesdave116.

Sol88 quotes from papers to insanely insult the authors by associating the usage of rock/bedrock/etc. terms with Sol88 demented dogma.
Astronomers know about astronomy! No astronomer believes that comets are actual rock (limestone, basalt, sandstone, etc. ) blasted from planets including recent times by electric discharges between planets + an invisible massive solar electric field that he persistently lies is the electric field in comet coma/surfaces + jets are electric discharges + electric discharge machining of the surface.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Wow, it's not like we have told you that like a bezillion times in this thread.
It is YOU who keeps on claiming that we (should) use Whipple as mainstream scientists.

Annnndddd....

I’ve asked a quizzillion times what model ARE you using?

Crickets is all I’ve heard, ergo you have no model.

You are still use sublimation and heat from the Sun as your main drivers, this is Whipple Dirtysnowball model.



Which model are the mainstream using now than tusenfem?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Well, I guess Sol88 keeps the same standards as he wants for mainstream scientists. We must use Whipple, and he will not see that Skorov could be wrong.
It's a intriguing but nauseating kind of justified balance.

Patzold could be wrong, hell even your papers are pretty dodgey.


Seems the only correct papers are the one still touting the Dirtysnowball.

Funny that. I mean if all you have is a hammer....

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Really? Which model should they be using? I've yet to see you offer one. When can we expect to see it? All we get are lies, and a failure to understand basic science. Will that ever stop? Unlikely, I'd say, as long as you are allowed to continually troll this forum.

Rocks discharging in the solar wind...

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Annnndddd....

I’ve asked a quizzillion times what model ARE you using?

Crickets is all I’ve heard, ergo you have no model.

You are still use sublimation and heat from the Sun as your main drivers, this is Whipple Dirtysnowball model.



Which model are the mainstream using now than tusenfem?

Sublimation is the main driver of activity. As observed. End of story.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Rocks discharging in the solar wind...

No rock, and no discharges. Fail. Got anything else?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Patzold could be wrong, hell even your papers are pretty dodgey.


Seems the only correct papers are the one still touting the Dirtysnowball.

Funny that. I mean if all you have is a hammer....

Given that you don't understand the papers, we can safely ignore that.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

FTFY

Cool, cheers for that.

Maybe you could fix this quote?

Quote:

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. 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 [3,4].

Nevertheless, there is still considerable uncertainty about even this basic parameter, not least of which is that most measurements are subject to selection effects in removing refractories from the nucleus to the coma, where they are observed as dust.

Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn


Show where I’ve misquoted and I’ll fix my error.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

No rock, and no discharges. Fail. Got anything else?

Plenty!

It’s very hard for complete numptys to grasp when sublimation, the Dirtysnowball, is still the model in vogue.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Sublimation is the main driver of activity. As observed. End of story.

So what was sublimating out past the “snow line”?

See, post above...

[Sol88]

Hint...

Electrostatic forces on grains near asteroids and comets Christine Hartzell1,and Dylan Carter

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity T.A. Nordheima,b,n, G.H. Jonesa,b, J.S. Halekasc, E. Roussosd, A.J. Coates


Now, you are say “sublimation” shuts this process off?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Cool, cheers for that.

Maybe you could fix this quote?

Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn


Show where I’ve misquoted and I’ll fix my error.

You error is in continually lying about there being rock at comets. There isn't. End of story. And as for the evolution of understanding that there is more dust than ice; that began decades ago, and I have linked you to papers saying precisely that. So, quit with the lying.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So what was sublimating out past the “snow line”?

See, post above...

SMH!!! How many times do you need telling? What is the sublimation temperature of CO₂? Or CO? Or O₂? Or CH₄?

Go and learn some science. The 'snow line' only applies to H₂O.

It isn't rocket science. What has happened, is that you have been taken in by the scientifically illiterate loon, Thornhill. He had the same problem. Thought the only ice claimed to be at comets was water ice. A bit thick, is Wal.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Plenty!

It’s very hard for complete numptys to grasp when sublimation, the Dirtysnowball, is still the model in vogue.

Plenty of what? More lies and scientifically impossible woo? I'm sure you have. However, you do not have a model.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Hint...

Electrostatic forces on grains near asteroids and comets Christine Hartzell1,and Dylan Carter

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity T.A. Nordheima,b,n, G.H. Jonesa,b, J.S. Halekasc, E. Roussosd, A.J. Coates


Now, you are say “sublimation” shuts this process off?

No. The authors say that. What is the title of Nordheim's paper? Does it, or does it not, include the words 'at periods of low activity'? Why do you think he wrote that?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 usual spate of demented questions, etc.
We are using the mainstream ices and dust comet model first established in the 1950's and refined since then to match an enormous body of empirical evidence.

Sol88 is using the demented delusions of an insane cult based on nothing but their semi-religious beliefs and the same demented dogma for over 40 years.

• Usual insults of posters.
  In this case, Sol88's insanity that a ignorant follower of a demented cult's dogma knows whether any paper is "pretty dodgy" but still insulting tusenfem's papers.
• Sols88's usual insane lies about his demented dogma.
• Sol88 spews out his insane insult of M.A’Hearn and all astronomers yet again !
• Usual insane " sublimation, the Dirtysnowball, is still the model in vogue" lie.
• Usual lies about post and posters.
  jonesdave116 wrote Sublimation is the main driver of activity. As observed. End of story.
  We have been telling this fact about comets for years to Sol88 and we get the same demented responses!
  1. Far from the Sun, a comet is quiet. No coma, no tails. The comet is not heated enough for ices to sublimate. A little thing called an inverse square law means the solar wind is too weak to significantly charge the comet dust grains.
  2. At a certain distance just outside the snowline, the solar wind does significantly charge the comet dust grains so that very small grains (we call these nanograins!) can lift from the surface. The beginning of a coma form as a dust cloud and thus not greatly blocking the solar wind. The comet is in a period of low activity.
  3. At the snowline sublimation of ices starts (that is the definition of snowline).
     Gasses are added to the coma. Now the solar wind begins to be blocked. Electrostatic lifting of nanograins decreases.
  4. Inside the snowline, sublimation becomes the main source of activity.
     The coma shields the comet nucleus and electrostatic lifting stops. This is what Sol88 has been insanely denying for years even when citing "during periods of low activity" papers. Jets of dust and gases inject more dust and gases into the coma. Gas drag injects more dust and gases into the coma.
• Repeats his demented "So what was sublimating out past the “snow line”?" question.
  Expect the insanity of repeating this demented question again and again.
• Sol88's insanity of showing just how demented his question is by citing mainstream papers on electrostatic lifting of dust grains which anyone with a brain would suspect will produce the positive and negative charged nanograins in the paper Sol88 is now obsessed with.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

No. The authors say that. What is the title of Nordheim's paper? Does it, or does it not, include the words 'at periods of low activity'? Why do you think he wrote that?

Annnndddd high activity IS THE DIRTYSNOWBALL

so jonesdave116 is saying once h2o becomes,e the main driver no electric fields no charged dust.




So, so funny.


What’s the mainstream model again?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Plenty of what? More lies and scientifically impossible woo? I'm sure you have. However, you do not have a model.

Rock, discharging in the solar wind.

As CONFIRMED by Deca et al.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Annnndddd high activity IS THE DIRTYSNOWBALL

so jonesdave116 is saying once h2o becomes,e the main driver no electric fields no charged dust.




So, so funny.


What’s the mainstream model again?

And more nonsense. High activity is not the dirty snowball model. It is the OBSERVED behaviour of comets. Do you understand the meaning of that word?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88's usual demented delusion that science does not progress.
Whipple in the 1950's may not have considered the effect of the solar wind on surface dust grains but this was in the model by the 1980's.

Sol88's usual insane lies about posts and posters.
jonesdave116 did not write about h2o in No. The authors say that. What is the title of Nordheim's paper? Does it, or does it not, include the words 'at periods of low activity'? Why do you think he wrote that?
The title of Nordheim's paper stated clearly that Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P is being described during periods of low activity. Anyone with a brain would wonder why periods of low activity are specified. The answer is that when a coma has formed, surface charging stops.

Sol88's persistent insane lies about papers, his demented dogma and insane insults of astronomers.
There will be none of Sol88's demented rock (or Sol88's insane lie of "discharging in the solar wind" being in Sol88's demented dogma) in Deca et al. because no astronomer would be insane enough to believe in Sol88's demented dogma. Sol88 seems too cowardly? to cite Deca et al. so that we can see that there is no mention of rock blasted from planets, etc. in it.

If the paper is A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet by Divin et. al (including Jan Deca) then Sol88 is insulting the authors and demented about the paper which is about the cometary plasma environment, i.e. the coma.
If the paper is Building a Weakly Outgassing Comet from a Generalized Ohm’s Law by Deca, J. et al. (2019) then Sol88 is insulting the authors and demented about the paper (cometary plasma environment again!).
If the paper is Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet by Jan Deca et.al. then Sol88 is insulting the authors and demented about the paper (cometary plasma environment again!).

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

And more nonsense. High activity is not the dirty snowball model. It is the OBSERVED behaviour of comets. Do you understand the meaning of that word?

How far from the nucleus does the "neutral" gas become ionised and what is causing it to become ionised?

P.S no electric fields can be used in the dirtysnowball model...