The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Utter gibberish and lies. I have said all along the DC formed from ion or electron friction. How can that happen if the whole shooting match was neutral? Learn to read. And the ions and electrons causing the friction are cometary in origin. The solar wind was ~ 100 000 km from the nucleus at Halley. The diamagnetic cavity was at ~ 4500 km.
And an electric field, which only exists due to outgassing, cannot stop the solar wind. It is an idiotic proposal. Where are you getting an electric field from?
And it is not my friction, liar. It is what is believed by anybody who knows anything about the subject. And that does not include you.
You have been conned by a couple of untutored wooists, whose idiotic model could be shown to be disproven 20 years before they wrote it down, and started touting it to the gullible fools who follow them. Embarrassed much?

Quote:

It means that electron-neutralcollisions rarely happen.

Near-surface expanding ionosphere of comet 67P


”I have said all along the DC formed from ion or electron friction” May not be totally correct...but might have been, if, comets were mostly ice.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

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 Mar 2020).
Sol88 showing how insane Sol88 is with demented lies.

jonesdave116 wrote Utter gibberish and lies. I have said all along the DC formed from ion or electron friction. How can that happen if the whole shooting match was neutral? This is a post about Sol88's demented obsession with the formation of a DC at a comet.

Soll88 lies about the title and content of the paper he cited! Vertical structure of the near-surface expanding ionosphere of comet 67P probed by Rosetta which is not about the formation of the DC !
Sol88 usual insane lie by quote mining.

Quote:

The corresponding Knudsen number for the electrons is found to be already superior to 5 at the surface of the nucleus (and increasing at higher cometocentric distances). It means that electron–neutral collisions rarely happen. This argument is strengthened by the presence of the solar wind driven magnetic field at the surface of the nucleus (Auster et al. 2015). Henri et al. (2017) showed that the electron exobase (located above the surface near perihelion) is directly correlated to the scaleheight of the diamagnetic cavity. Witnessing the magnetic field near the surface implies that the neutrals are not strongly interacting with the bulk of the electron population. The electron flow moves freely into the plasma mixture. However, charge neutrality is ensured by an ambipolar electric field reacting from any departure from the electrons (Cravens 1997).

When 67P was 3.8 AU from the Sun on its outward journey, electron–neutral collisions were rare at the surface of the nucleus and above (a high Knudsen number suggests free molecular flow).

Sol88 shows how insane he is. He cites a paper about 67P. We detected a DC at 67P. 67P is at least 17% ices and so probably not mostly ices. We know that a DC does not need a comet to be mostly ices because we detected a DC at a comet that is likely to be not mostly ices !

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Near-surface expanding ionosphere of comet 67P


”I have said all along the DC formed from ion or electron friction” May not be totally correct...but might have been, if, comets were mostly ice.

The comet doesn't need to be mostly ice. How many times do you need telling? There is sufficient ice to form sufficient gas to cause the formation of the DC. As predicted, and as observed. So, it really doesn't matter what you think, given the idiocy that you believe in.
And if you are going to quote something, then link to the paper so that we can see the context from which you have cherry-picked it.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Dirtysnowball! not needed

Idiocy. No gas = no electric fields, no currents.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Why hung up on photoionisation, champ?



And all this when . Vertical structure of the near-surface expanding ionosphere of comet 67P probed by Rosetta

Ice? Outgassing water vapour at 3.8au?

On the other hand we have energetic electrons, electric fields, electric currents...

None of which can explain outgassing, and every time you are asked to show the scientific method behind your idiotic claims, you run away. Your stupid woo was shown to be a non-starter 20 years before the idiots who invented it, wrote it down! And every one of their acolytes were too dim to even check the scientific literature to see if they were telling porkies. Guess what? They were. And you were one of the dim acolytes who got conned!

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

On the other hand we have energetic electrons, electric fields, electric currents...

Nope. Not on the nucleus you don't. Solar wind ain't reaching it when it is most active. Stop making crap up. It is tiresome.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Mercury's 400 C heat may help it make its own ice

Lol. Which just shows a lack of comprehension of the article, and a lack of basic maths to show why this is a non-starter for comets. Apart from anything else, the amount suggested per year, is ~ 3.3 x 10⁶ kg. From a body as big as Mercury is compared to a comet.
On the other hand, the impact at Tempel 1 ejected ~ 4 times that amount in ice alone, from a tiny little hole in the ground! Not to mention the vapour that was also released.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Idiocy. No gas = no electric fields, no currents.

Whooo boy....

Dude, you got led ‘round by the nose to show it’s the PLASMA (very important) and not GAS.

You were then shown we have a plasma all ready formed around 67P when Rosetta arrived out near 3.8au, a surprise to the Dirtysnowballers!

You were then shown impact ionisation is the PRIMARY cause of turning neutrals into charged particles including dust!

You were then shown this cometary plasma, like the AMPTE experiments plasma, will form an electric field to maintain quasi neutrality and shield the solar wind magnetic field out. This interface between the solar wind and the “foreign” plasma is were it’s at in regards to the “diamagnetic” cavity.

It’s a plasma sheath formed from the nucleus being a charged rocky object ploughing thru the supersonic plasma flow. In the process it seperates SPATIALLY. We then end up with all sorts of plasma structures, some of which persist for quite some way “down” the tail.

So, you are more than welcome to do your little knickers all bunched up, hissyfit dance but them’s the facts and they do not sit comfortably with the Dirtysnowball model.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Lol. Which just shows a lack of comprehension of the article, and a lack of basic maths to show why this is a non-starter for comets. Apart from anything else, the amount suggested per year, is ~ 3.3 x 10⁶ kg. From a body as big as Mercury is compared to a comet.
On the other hand, the impact at Tempel 1 ejected ~ 4 times that amount in ice alone, from a tiny little hole in the ground! Not to mention the vapour that was also released.

Dude.... HASER model!

Waaaaaaaaaaay over estimated the “water”!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

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 Mar 2020).

Sol88 shows his insanity with a new demented lie of "plasma all ready formed around 67P when Rosetta arrived out near 3.8au, a surprise to the Dirtysnowballers".
A comet traveling as normal on it's orbit and acting as expected is not a surprise except to an insane follower of a demented cult.
Vertical structure of the near-surface expanding ionosphere of comet 67P probed by Rosetta is on data from the last act of Rosetta (crashing into the nucleus) as 67P left the Sun at 3.8 AU. This is stated in the paper's abstract. I explained this to Sol88. But we still get insane lies about basic facts from him! This was plasma lleft over" from the close approach to the Sun.
The authors are not surprised. The authors expected that ionosphere to exist because they know the basic physics astronomers and even high school science students know! Heat an object. Stop heating it. It does not instantly cool back to its previous temperature ! 67P was outgassing because the Sun heated it during the approach to the Sun. 67P continued to outgas as it left the Sun. When 67P passed the line where water ices would start to sublimate on its inward journey (~3 AU), water ices continued to sublimate while 67 continued to cool. I suspect that over 3 years later, 67P has cooled enough that there is no sublimation and thus no outgassing.

Sol88 shows his insanity with yet another deluded lie of "impact ionisation is the PRIMARY cause of turning neutrals into charged particles including dust". The primary cause of ionizing the neutral gas from sublimating ices is photoionization as in the papers Sol88 has cited.

Sol88 shows his usual insanity with "comet is a charged rocky object " when no rock has ever been detected on comets and he explicitly states that the solar wind cannot reach the surface when there is a coma to charge his insanity of a rock.

Sol88 insanely writes "they do not sit comfortably with the Dirtysnowball model" when everything he has been ranting about is the dirty snowball model !
The diamagnetic cavity, the AMTE experiments showing that all that is needed is a coma (no a comet nucleus in the experiment!) the DC, its theory of formation and detection has been part of the model for decades.
Electrostatic charging of grains on the nucleus by the solar wind and the coma stopping this by stopping the solar wind has been part of the model for decades.

Next post: Sol88 emphasizes his insanity with repeating his insanity about the Haser model.
The Haser model is a model of the production of daughter products in the coma given the measured outgassing. Sol88 is insane by thinking that the Haser model predicts the outgassing. Sol88 is insane about the use of an approximation in the model.
Sol88 emphasizes his insanity yet again since the amount of water ejected by Deep Impact (" A total of 5 million kg (11 million lb) of water") is a measurement as he has been told for many years. The Swift X-ray telescope is not the Haser model !

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Whooo boy....

Dude, you got led ‘round by the nose to show it’s the PLASMA (very important) and not GAS.

You were then shown we have a plasma all ready formed around 67P when Rosetta arrived out near 3.8au, a surprise to the Dirtysnowballers!

You were then shown impact ionisation is the PRIMARY cause of turning neutrals into charged particles including dust!

You were then shown this cometary plasma, like the AMPTE experiments plasma, will form an electric field to maintain quasi neutrality and shield the solar wind magnetic field out. This interface between the solar wind and the “foreign” plasma is were it’s at in regards to the “diamagnetic” cavity.

It’s a plasma sheath formed from the nucleus being a charged rocky object ploughing thru the supersonic plasma flow. In the process it seperates SPATIALLY. We then end up with all sorts of plasma structures, some of which persist for quite some way “down” the tail.

So, you are more than welcome to do your little knickers all bunched up, hissyfit dance but them’s the facts and they do not sit comfortably with the Dirtysnowball model.

Complete and utter crap. Stop making stuff up. I was shown nothing by you. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about, so that would be difficult. Where the hell do you think the plasma is coming from? Ionised neutrals. Where are the neutrals coming from? A question that you consistently fail to answer. What is the ratio of neutrals to ions in the cavity? How many times have I asked that? Answer it, instead of making crap up. Where did the plasma in the AMPTE experiment come from? Gas. Nowhere else. We know how a diamagnetic cavity forms - we do not need clueless wooists to make up impossible crap to explain it.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Dude.... HASER model!

Waaaaaaaaaaay over estimated the “water”!

How did they use the Haser model (which you do not understand) to estimate SOLID ICE production? Huh? Show me in the paper. Stop lying, yes? Your woo failed 20 years before it was invented. We were well into the Rosetta mission before you even knew of the existence of a DC at Halley. Or that the solar wind was shown to be getting nowhere near the nucleus. Or that the magnetometer ruled out your idiotic woo from measurements inside the cavity that you never knew about. Nor did you know about the ice excavated from Tempel 1. Nor the ice at Hartley 2. Or around Hale-Bopp. And why didn't you know? Because everything you ever believed about comets came from a couple of Velikovskian con artists, who either didn't know themselves, or did, but refused to tell you.
In short, you have spent 15 years (!) on the internet, defending a scientifically impossible heap of crap, that was shown to be trivially wrong 20 years before you started! What a waste of a life!

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Dirtysnowball! not needed

Erm, you keep saying this, but you do not actually do what is needed to convince anybody. Merely muttering the relevant words, but without a model that predict the necessary values, and showing that these values are consistent to the measurements, just leaves you with words.
Your technique might be good for a face to face debate, but doesn't work in a place like this. Try again.

[jonesdave116]

Right, I'll answer my own question from above, as Sol will never be able to find it;

Quote:

The gas formed from sublimation is flowing radially outward with a velocity of the order of about 700 m s−1 [Gulkis et al., 2015] and is being partly ionized, through predominantly photoionization. The density of the neutral gas, measured by the ROSINA/COPS, instrument are plotted in Figure 1e. Our measurements at 10 km indicate that the ratio between plasma density and neutral density is typically 1–2⋅10⁻⁶, when comparing Figures 1d and 1e. The peaks in ion, electron, and neutral density (coinciding with dips in spacecraft potential) occur when Rosetta is above the neck area, i.e., in between the two main lobes of comet 67P at longitudes of approximately +60∘ and−120∘ and creates a 6.2 h periodicity to the data. This has been seen since arrival at the comet in early August.

Spatial distribution of low-energy plasma around comet67P/CG from Rosetta measurements
Edberg, N. J. T. et al. (2015)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2015GL064233

So, as I suggested a few days ago, about a million to one. That is your plasma.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

How did they use the Haser model (which you do not understand) to estimate SOLID ICE production? Huh? Show me in the paper. Stop lying, yes? Your woo failed 20 years before it was invented. We were well into the Rosetta mission before you even knew of the existence of a DC at Halley. Or that the solar wind was shown to be getting nowhere near the nucleus. Or that the magnetometer ruled out your idiotic woo from measurements inside the cavity that you never knew about. Nor did you know about the ice excavated from Tempel 1. Nor the ice at Hartley 2. Or around Hale-Bopp. And why didn't you know? Because everything you ever believed about comets came from a couple of Velikovskian con artists, who either didn't know themselves, or did, but refused to tell you.
In short, you have spent 15 years (!) on the internet, defending a scientifically impossible heap of crap, that was shown to be trivially wrong 20 years before you started! What a waste of a life!

Quote:

The Haser formula for the number of molecules within a circular aperture is used to convert the number of OH molecules to the water production rate of the comet. The underlying assumptions are that OH is derived from dissociation of cometary water, and that both parent (H2O) and daughter (OH) molecules are flowing radially away from the nucleus with a constant velocity.

A large dust/ice ratio in the nucleus of comet9P/Tempel 1

Icy dust grains have never been observed only invoked because of the application of the HASER model!

HASER model is misleading and incorrect!


Comets have a dribble of OH from the same process as

Quote:

The protons implant themselves into the soil all over the planet about 10 nanometers deep, forming in the minerals the hydroxyl groups (OH), which diffuse to the surface, where the heat does the rest.

Mercury's 400 C heat may help it make its own ice

The HASER model has led you down the garden path!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by steenkh

Erm, you keep saying this, but you do not actually do what is needed to convince anybody. Merely muttering the relevant words, but without a model that predict the necessary values, and showing that these values are consistent to the measurements, just leaves you with words.
Your technique might be good for a face to face debate, but doesn't work in a place like this. Try again.

Me convince you?

Not a chance.

But when your model is based on incorrect assumptions and interpretations of the data then anything can be made to fit the icy Dirtysnowball.

For instance the use of the HASER model as above.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

A large dust/ice ratio in the nucleus of comet9P/Tempel 1

Icy dust grains have never been observed only invoked because of the application of the HASER model!

HASER model is misleading and incorrect!


Comets have a dribble of OH from the same process as Mercury's 400 C heat may help it make its own ice

The HASER model has led you down the garden path!

I asked you a question. I did not ask for more lies. Show me in the paper where they use the Haser model to estimate SOLID ICE. You can't, because you made it up. And they most definitely did see see solid ice grains (not dust), as has been pointed out to you before. There is no mistaking the spectroscopy of those grains. However, that is another subject of which you have zero knowledge, so need to lie about it, to make your religion hold up. Those icy grains had the same spectroscopic signature as these ones;



Nothing else they can be mistaken for. And there is no OH close to the nucleus. Only H₂O. Again, that is demonstrated by various instruments, whose functions are a complete mystery to you. It takes quite a while to turn water molecules into OH. They have quite a long lifetime against ionisation, let alone against dissociation.
So, I'm afraid your complete lack of understanding of all things scientific, and a penchant for lying, leave you in the same place as before - a black hole of preferred ignorance, and a quasi-religious belief in the laughable utterings of Velikovskian clowns.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Me convince you?

Not a chance.

But when your model is based on incorrect assumptions and interpretations of the data then anything can be made to fit the icy Dirtysnowball.

For instance the use of the HASER model as above.

You don't even know what the Haser model is! How the hell is the Haser model related to the spectroscopic (and visual!) observation of solid ice grains? Explain, instead of lying about things that you don't understand. How has the proof that Thornhill lied, based on the unique ro-vibrational lines of water vapour, observed in 1985, got anything to do with the Haser model? What has the Haser model got to do with the complete non-detection of any electrical woo in 1986? Or the observation that the cavity contained only cometary species. And the vast majority of them neutral? Where does the Haser model come into that?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 emphasizes his insanity yet again.
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 Mar 2020).
A large dust/ice ratio in the nucleus of comet9P/Tempel 1 from 2005: "we report the water vapour content (1.5 10(32) water molecules or 4.5 10(6) kg)" with the dust content suggests that comets are more icy dirtballs than dirty snowballs.

Sol88 persists with his insane lies about the Haser model.
The Haser model is a model of gases, not ice or even dust grains !
The Haser model is not whatever Sol88's demented brain thinks it is. It is a 1960's simple model of how comets produce the observed ions in their coma from the observed outgassing.

Repeats his insane delusion that comets are Mercury (Mercury's 400 C heat may help it make its own ice). Sol88 is even more insane since this has nothing to do with his demented dogma that comets are rock in a massive solar electric field, etc. Sol88 is even more insane because he knows that active comets with a coma have no solar wind hitting the nucleus to use that mechanism. Sol88 is even more insane because when the solar wind hits comet nuclei, it is hitting a mixture of ices and dust, not Mercury's solid rock. Sol88 is even more insane because few comets get as close to the Sun as Mercury. Sol88 is even more insane because comets temperatures are much less than 0 C !

Next post: Sol88 emphasizes his insanity yet again with more insane lies about the working ices and dust comet model backed up with over 70 years of empirical data and his insane obsession with lying about the Haser model.

Next post: Sol88 emphasizes his insanity yet again with a demented "questimate Q for water production at comets" question.
He has been told for years that Q is a measurement. He knows the example of the water production from Deep Impact in 2005.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

You don't even know what the Haser model is! How the hell is the Haser model related to the spectroscopic (and visual!) observation of solid ice grains? Explain, instead of lying about things that you don't understand. How has the proof that Thornhill lied, based on the unique ro-vibrational lines of water vapour, observed in 1985, got anything to do with the Haser model? What has the Haser model got to do with the complete non-detection of any electrical woo in 1986? Or the observation that the cavity contained only cometary species. And the vast majority of them neutral? Where does the Haser model come into that?

How do you questimate Q for water production at comets then?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

How do you questimate Q for water production at comets then?

I am not linking to all the papers again. Various models, using everything from Haser (legitimate for distant observations, such as ground-based, or distant spacecraft), to others employing sophisticated nucleus mesh models, have been used. The fact is, they all agree to within a factor of ~ 3.
The Haser model usually relies on OH measurements from afar, using a spherical model. This is legitimate at the distance they are from the comet, and the distance at which OH is measured from the comet. To all intents and purposes, it is a point source for Earth-based measurements, and can be treated as spherical.
Now, what does OH tell us? Well, it is an inevitable dissociative product of water. That dissociation time is well constrained. So, you see x amount of OH, and you can extrapolate the original water outgassing rate. There is nowhere else the OH can be coming from, despite the claims of the idiot Thornhill.
As for the more sophisticated models from the in-situ instruments, they are based on the accurate shape model, and the detection of H₂0, not OH. OH is not going to occur close to the nucleus. It hasn't had time to dissociate from water. If Thornhill's woo were true, we should be seeing it in abundance close to the nucleus. We don't. We see water close to the nucleus. Definitively. Either in IR (VIRTIS), or sub-mm (MIRO), or due to direct capture by ROSINA.
In the EC fairytale, we should firstly see the O⁺ close to the surface, from the impossible, unobserved EDM (lol) woo. Then, further out, the OH after it impossibly combines with the solar wind H⁺, hurtling by at 400 km/s! And that is as far as he went. One assumes that if he wants to further impossibly capture another H to form water, then that will be even further out. Which is all arse about face, as well as being scientifically illiterate woo. Water is closest to the nucleus. Then the ionised water. Then OH. And, eventually, H. Which is just as any sane person would expect. Indeed, that is what the EU hero, Alfven, expected back before we had ever detected water at a comet. The huge cloud of H (impossible, according to the clowns who invented this EC woo) must have come from water, he surmised.

[jonesdave116]

So, what didn't the inventors of the EC woo tell their gullible acolytes?

• They didn't tell them about the first definitive detection of H₂0 at a comet, in 1985, by the Kuiper Airborne Observatory (paper published 1986). Seen in IR from an instrument aboard a 747 (?) high above much of the atmosphere. V-band detection. Definitive.
• The detections by Vega of H₂0 at Halley. The detection of water ions by Giotto (I think its neutral detector got broken) at Halley. In a place where the solar wind wasn't reaching.
• The detection of a diamagnetic cavity at Halley, within which were only cometary species, overwhelmingly neutral.
• The total lack of any magnetic field signature in the magnetometer data within said cavity, thereby killing off any claims of electric woo on the surface, 20 years before they were made!
• The umpteen other definitive detections of water vapour around comets from space-based instruments, prior to their magnum crappus, in 2006. Namely from the Odin satellite. In sub-mm. Definitively H₂0.
• The detection of ice grains around Hale-Bopp, in 1997. At 7.0 and 2.9 AU (iirc).
• The detection of icy grains in the impact ejecta from Tempel 1. Definitively detected in IR and UV. By different spacecraft.
• The veritable snowstorm of ice around Hartley 2, in 2011.

I'm sure there is other stuff that I have forgotten over the years, but that'll do far starters. Now, how many of Sol's infamous lurkers would have believed any of the EC crap had they known about all that prior to the Rosetta mission? From my experience on the Rosetta Blog, it came as very surprising news to them, to the extent that a few questioned such claims. Until it was shown to them in the scientific literature. At which point many of them disappeared. Not all. The highly brainwashed clung on for a while longer. By the end, they had all gone. No doubt embarrassed to have been conned by such idiotic woo.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Me convince you?

Not a chance. .

As long as you continue with the same strategy of throwing out technical terms without any real knowledge, like you just did above, you are right, it will be difficult to convince me. But I do pride myself that I can be persuaded by facts*, so bring on all the studies that show electrical fields of a magnitude necessary for your theory to work, and I might consider it.

Quote:

But when your model is based on incorrect assumptions and interpretations of the data then anything can be made to fit the icy Dirtysnowball.

For instance the use of the HASER model as above.

The real experts here have already pointed out that the Haser model wasn't used here, and would not be appropriate, so you might reconsider that statement.

ETA:
* Do you think you could be persuaded by facts?

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by steenkh

ETA:
* Do you think you could be persuaded by facts?

Sol88 is highly fact resistant.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by steenkh

The real experts here have already pointed out that the Haser model wasn't used here, and would not be appropriate, so you might reconsider that statement.

It is actually anyone who can read and understand physics and English! Or is not a gullible follower of a demented cult who has persisted for over a decade in spewing out gibberish rather than thinking.
We have cited the Deep Impact ejecta maybe hundreds of times .

Quote:

Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kg (11 million lb) of water[41] and between 10 and 25 million kg (22 and 55 million lb) of dust were lost from the impact.[39]

Everyone in the world (except Sol88 and maybe some of his cult) understands that the Swift X-ray telescope is not the Haser model.

We have cited A re-evaluation of the Haser model scale lengths for comets (1985) many times and it says what the Haser model is in clear English.

[jonesdave116]

To add to the previous; the Haser model was also used due to the distance of the comets from the telescopes observing them. The nucleus is shrouded by dust, and its shape is therefore pretty much impossible to deduce from Earth or space-based telescopes. Only with in-situ observations is the shape discernible. For such distant observations, the assumption of a sphere is perfectly reasonable.
In addition, until relatively recently it was impossible to detect cometary water from Earth-based observations due to telluric water. That is why the first definitive detection didn't occur until 1985 by the Kuiper Airborne Observatory. That was able to get above the bulk of the atmosphere and measure H₂0 in the coma of Halley;

Detection of Water Vapor in Halley's Comet
Mumma, M. J. et al. (1986)
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/232/4757/1523 (paywalled, but the abstract tells you everything you need to know).

The v3 band refers to the asymmetric stretch of the water molecule, as shown (hopefully) here;



I'll leave it to the educated reader to figure out why an OH molecule could never do that!

So, Thornhll's claims, in 2006, that scientists were only detecting OH, and unjustifiably attributing that to water production were wrong on two counts;

1) It pretty much can only come from water production, and;

2) By 2006 we had not only the Kuiper detection, but in-situ detections from Halley, as well as from the space-based Odin satellite.

Now, Odin detects water in the microwave (or sub-mm) band. It detects a particular transition of water at ~ 557 GHz. That can only be from water. The nearest line from OH (iirc) is ~ 1100 GHz. As is mentioned in the following Odin paper, water was also definitively detected at Hale-Bopp by another space-based instrument in 1997;

Observations of water in comets with Odin
Lecacheux, A. et al. (2003)
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pd...18/aaODIN5.pdf

Odin works on the same principle as the MIRO instrument that was on Rosetta, although that instrument was sophisticated enough to distinguish between the different isotopes of water (H₂160, H₂17O & H₂18O).

So, that is a brief summary of the detections of water prior to Thornhill saying it wasn't there, in 2006. Which is why Sol cannot bring himself to accept water at comets. Thornhill said it wasn't there, so it isn't there. Despite the aforementioned clown having clue zero about any of the relevant science, and believing in all sorts of physics defying woo. I guess it's some sort of religious type thing, where Thornhill is one of the high priests of Sol's religion, kind of like the Pope. Whatever he says goes. Doesn't matter what the science says. Wal must be right. All very sad, if you ask me.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

I asked you a question. I did not ask for more lies. Show me in the paper where they use the Haser model to estimate SOLID ICE. You can't, because you made it up. And they most definitely did see see solid ice grains (not dust), as has been pointed out to you before. There is no mistaking the spectroscopy of those grains. However, that is another subject of which you have zero knowledge, so need to lie about it, to make your religion hold up. Those icy grains had the same spectroscopic signature as these ones;

https://science.nasa.gov/science-red...?itok=4EtOeLCN

Nothing else they can be mistaken for. And there is no OH close to the nucleus. Only H₂O. Again, that is demonstrated by various instruments, whose functions are a complete mystery to you. It takes quite a while to turn water molecules into OH. They have quite a long lifetime against ionisation, let alone against dissociation.
So, I'm afraid your complete lack of understanding of all things scientific, and a penchant for lying, leave you in the same place as before - a black hole of preferred ignorance, and a quasi-religious belief in the laughable utterings of Velikovskian clowns.

Quote:

SWAN observed 103P/Hartley 2 during its 1997 apparition (Combi et al. 2011) yielding water production rates that were consistent with values determined from both ground-based observations of OH (A'Hearn et al. 1995) in 1991, O(1D) atoms (Fink 2009) in 1997, and from observations with the ISOPHOT instrument on the Infrared Space Observatory (Crovisier et al. 1999; Colangeli et al. 1999). SWAN results from 1997 and 2010 are compared in Figure 2. Clearly the comet and its production of water changed dramatically from 1997 (and 1991) to 2010. The 1997 production rates were a factor of three larger than those in the 2010 apparition.

One way to characterize water production rates in comets is to calculate an equivalent surface area of water ice, which when exposed to sunlight at the comet's heliocentric distance, is required to produce the observed water vapor.

Because of the reality of variable surface and surface fractional coverage by water this is called the "minimum active area." It was calculated for all SWAN water production rates of 103P/Hartley 2 from 1997 and 2010 and compared with the measured minimum, maximum, and mean cross sections of the nucleus from EPOXI imaging (A'Hearn et al. 2011), and all are plotted in Figure 3.

Quote:

Water production rates were calculated for each usable SWAN image from 2010 September 14 to December 12. The dissociation chain of water to OH radicals and the H atoms produced, plus their transit times to fill the observable coma, introduces a time delay from any change in water activity near the nucleus to an observable coma response of 1–2 days.

WATER PRODUCTION BY COMET 103P/HARTLEY 2 OBSERVED WITH THE SWAN INSTRUMENT ON THE SOHO SPACECRAFT


So, ergo lots of OH + H = comets are MOSTLY ICE!

AND THERE ARE NO OR EVER HAVE BEEN ANY DISTRIBUTED WATER SOURCES!

Head so far up ya clacker, you have trouble realizing...

Comets are mostly REFRACTORY material AND HYDROCARBONS!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

To add to the previous; the Haser model was also used due to the distance of the comets from the telescopes observing them. The nucleus is shrouded by dust, and its shape is therefore pretty much impossible to deduce from Earth or space-based telescopes. Only with in-situ observations is the shape discernible. For such distant observations, the assumption of a sphere is perfectly reasonable.
In addition, until relatively recently it was impossible to detect cometary water from Earth-based observations due to telluric water. That is why the first definitive detection didn't occur until 1985 by the Kuiper Airborne Observatory. That was able to get above the bulk of the atmosphere and measure H₂0 in the coma of Halley;

Detection of Water Vapor in Halley's Comet
Mumma, M. J. et al. (1986)
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/232/4757/1523 (paywalled, but the abstract tells you everything you need to know).

The v3 band refers to the asymmetric stretch of the water molecule, as shown (hopefully) here;

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/v1.gif

I'll leave it to the educated reader to figure out why an OH molecule could never do that!

So, Thornhll's claims, in 2006, that scientists were only detecting OH, and unjustifiably attributing that to water production were wrong on two counts;

1) It pretty much can only come from water production, and;

2) By 2006 we had not only the Kuiper detection, but in-situ detections from Halley, as well as from the space-based Odin satellite.

Now, Odin detects water in the microwave (or sub-mm) band. It detects a particular transition of water at ~ 557 GHz. That can only be from water. The nearest line from OH (iirc) is ~ 1100 GHz. As is mentioned in the following Odin paper, water was also definitively detected at Hale-Bopp by another space-based instrument in 1997;

Observations of water in comets with Odin
Lecacheux, A. et al. (2003)
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pd...18/aaODIN5.pdf

Odin works on the same principle as the MIRO instrument that was on Rosetta, although that instrument was sophisticated enough to distinguish between the different isotopes of water (H₂160, H₂17O & H₂18O).

So, that is a brief summary of the detections of water prior to Thornhill saying it wasn't there, in 2006. Which is why Sol cannot bring himself to accept water at comets. Thornhill said it wasn't there, so it isn't there. Despite the aforementioned clown having clue zero about any of the relevant science, and believing in all sorts of physics defying woo. I guess it's some sort of religious type thing, where Thornhill is one of the high priests of Sol's religion, kind of like the Pope. Whatever he says goes. Doesn't matter what the science says. Wal must be right. All very sad, if you ask me.

yeah, but your problem is then ASSUMING it all comes from ICE!

but

Quote:

Even if the nucleus were composed of pure ice from a depth of 1.5 cm downwards, the entire surface of 67P would release a negligible water fraction of that observed (Gulkis et al. 2015; Keller et al. 2015b). This proves that all the water-vapour is coming from the uppermost surface layer thinner than 1 cm, i.e. the size of the largest pebbles ejected at 3.6 au inbound (Rotundi et al. 2015), and a factor of 100 thinner than the metre-sized chunks ejected at perihelion (Fulle et al. 2016). This fact further suggests that a force independent of vapour pressure is breaking the link between dust and the nucleus surface, after which the dust is accelerated in the coma by vapour drag.

Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

but YOU are quite happy to invoke sublimation whenever it suites!

Quote:

The classical model of comets as dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950) has focused most models of comets on ices. The more we visit comets, the dustier they appear. With 67P's dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside.

Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view


Ouch!

So....back to the question in hand. Joesdave116 gas friction stopping the solar wind lark!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 emphasizes his insanity with a demented post.
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 Mar 2020).

jonesdave116 asked a simple question: I asked you a question. I did not ask for more lies. Show me in the paper where they use the Haser model to estimate SOLID ICE. and goes on to explain some textbook science.

Sol88 replies with his usual insane lies.
WATER PRODUCTION BY COMET 103P/HARTLEY 2 OBSERVED WITH THE SWAN INSTRUMENT ON THE SOHO SPACECRAFT does not say that comets are mostly ice. It says that the water production on comets can be calculated as coming from an equivalent covering of surface water ices.

Sol88's personal "lots of OH + H = comets are MOSTLY ICE" insanity. More of his insane UPPERCASE gibberish.

Next post: Sol88 emphasizes his insanity yet again.
The physical fact is that water produced from comets has to come from sublimating water ices because we have detected water ices on comets !
There is no water production from Sol88's insanity because it is insane as a child can understand (a measured density of less than water is not the density of rock!, etc.) but Sol88 and his demented cult.

Sol88 goes insane about Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view yet again.
The phrase "which the dust is accelerated in the coma by vapour drag" is vapour from sublimating ices accelerating the dust !
We have known for 15 years that Tempel 1 (and now 67P) have large fractions of dust. Thus anyone with a couple of brain cells will expect scientists to spend more time on modeling ices and just comets with more dust .

Sol88 persists with his insanity of derailing from his demented dogma with his insane obsession with irrelevant topics.
We have gone over the fact that comet coma stop the solar wind from reaching the nucleus time and time again.

Sol88 persists with his insane sane lies about posts and posters.
jonesdave116 has made it clear that it is not "gas friction" that stops the solar wind and forms the DC. Everyone except a demented Sol88 knows this.
Utter gibberish and lies. I have said all along the DC formed from ion or electron friction. How can that happen if the whole shooting match was neutral? Learn to read. And the ions and electrons causing the friction are cometary in origin. The solar wind was ~ 100 000 km from the nucleus at Halley. The diamagnetic cavity was at ~ 4500 km.
That is the comet coma (plasma!) stopping the solar wind ~ 100 000 km from the nucleus at Halley.

Next post : Sol88 goes on an insane rant about water not on comets! Sol88 persists with his insane obsession with the mainstream ices and dust comet diamagnetic cavity.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

To add to the previous; the Haser model was also used due to the distance of the comets from the telescopes observing them. The nucleus is shrouded by dust, and its shape is therefore pretty much impossible to deduce from Earth or space-based telescopes. Only with in-situ observations is the shape discernible. For such distant observations, the assumption of a sphere is perfectly reasonable.
In addition, until relatively recently it was impossible to detect cometary water from Earth-based observations due to telluric water. That is why the first definitive detection didn't occur until 1985 by the Kuiper Airborne Observatory. That was able to get above the bulk of the atmosphere and measure H₂0 in the coma of Halley;

Detection of Water Vapor in Halley's Comet
Mumma, M. J. et al. (1986)
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/232/4757/1523 (paywalled, but the abstract tells you everything you need to know).

The v3 band refers to the asymmetric stretch of the water molecule, as shown (hopefully) here;

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/v1.gif

I'll leave it to the educated reader to figure out why an OH molecule could never do that!

So, Thornhll's claims, in 2006, that scientists were only detecting OH, and unjustifiably attributing that to water production were wrong on two counts;

1) It pretty much can only come from water production, and;

2) By 2006 we had not only the Kuiper detection, but in-situ detections from Halley, as well as from the space-based Odin satellite.

Now, Odin detects water in the microwave (or sub-mm) band. It detects a particular transition of water at ~ 557 GHz. That can only be from water. The nearest line from OH (iirc) is ~ 1100 GHz. As is mentioned in the following Odin paper, water was also definitively detected at Hale-Bopp by another space-based instrument in 1997;

Observations of water in comets with Odin
Lecacheux, A. et al. (2003)
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pd...18/aaODIN5.pdf

Odin works on the same principle as the MIRO instrument that was on Rosetta, although that instrument was sophisticated enough to distinguish between the different isotopes of water (H₂160, H₂17O & H₂18O).

So, that is a brief summary of the detections of water prior to Thornhill saying it wasn't there, in 2006. Which is why Sol cannot bring himself to accept water at comets. Thornhill said it wasn't there, so it isn't there. Despite the aforementioned clown having clue zero about any of the relevant science, and believing in all sorts of physics defying woo. I guess it's some sort of religious type thing, where Thornhill is one of the high priests of Sol's religion, kind of like the Pope. Whatever he says goes. Doesn't matter what the science says. Wal must be right. All very sad, if you ask me.

How amazing is that!

So good we have also water on the MOON and MERCURY and ASTEROIDS!

Water water everywhere!

but back to the diamagnetic cavity...

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Sol88 emphasizes his insanity with a demented post.
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 Mar 2020).

jonesdave116 asked a simple question: I asked you a question. I did not ask for more lies. Show me in the paper where they use the Haser model to estimate SOLID ICE. and goes on to explain some textbook science.

Sol88 replies with his usual insane lies.
WATER PRODUCTION BY COMET 103P/HARTLEY 2 OBSERVED WITH THE SWAN INSTRUMENT ON THE SOHO SPACECRAFT does not say that comets are mostly ice. It says that the water production on comets can be calculated as coming from an equivalent covering of surface water ices.

Sol88's personal "lots of OH + H = comets are MOSTLY ICE" insanity. More of his insane UPPERCASE gibberish.

Next post: Sol88 emphasizes his insanity yet again.
The physical fact is that water produced from comets has to come from sublimating water ices because we have detected water ices on comets !
There is no water production from Sol88's insanity because it is insane as a child can understand (a measured density of less than water is not the density of rock!, etc.) but Sol88 and his demented cult.

Sol88 goes insane about Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view yet again.
The phrase "which the dust is accelerated in the coma by vapour drag" is vapour from sublimating ices accelerating the dust !
We have known for 15 years that Tempel 1 (and now 67P) have large fractions of dust. Thus anyone with a couple of brain cells will expect scientists to spend more time on modeling ices and just comets with more dust .

Sol88 persists with his insanity of derailing from his demented dogma with his insane obsession with irrelevant topics.
We have gone over the fact that comet coma stop the solar wind from reaching the nucleus time and time again.

Sol88 persists with his insane sane lies about posts and posters.
jonesdave116 has made it clear that it is not "gas friction" that stops the solar wind. Everyone except a demented Sol88 knows this.

What stops the solar wind from reaching the nucleus?

jonesdave116 says gas friction, reality check doubles down and backs him!

and

Just for a giggle

Quote:

The phrase "which the dust is accelerated in the coma by vapour drag" is vapour from sublimating ices accelerating the dust !

Same as jonesdaves116 gas friction!

When in reality the dust is CHARGED and responds to the electric fields...but if gas/vapour drag/friction is easier to do the math's, feel free to knock yourself out!

Why so hard to understand?

The dust is charged, both - and +, there are Electric fields both inward and outward pointing.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 emphasizes his insanity by expecting me to answer his demented post (other than pointing out insane he is!)) when we have 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 Mar 2020).
Already answered, irrelevant to Sol88's insanity, demented questions.
Insane lies about posts and posters.
Insane obsession with the words "electric field".

[Sol88]

Quote:

Using this, the radial dependence of the neutral gas density Nn can be formulated by the Haser [1957] model: N r Q V r r V n n 4 e e 2 exp . (30.6)

The number of ions that are implanted per second into the solar wind is then given by Qi = ƒËNn (see also, Huddleston et al. [1990]).

It is this heavy ion plasma (H2O, CO, CO2), in combination with the solar wind plasma (H, He), which, in combination with the emitted neutrals, makes up the coma. Depending on the activity stage of the comet and the distance of the spacecraft from the nucleus, this means that different kinds of plasma compositions can be measured.

In the early stage of the Rosetta mission [Glassmeier et al., 2007a], with comet 67P/Churyumov�]Gerasimenko (67P/CG) between 3.6 and 2.0 AU distance from the Sun, there was a clear mixture of cometary ions and solar wind ions measured by the Rosetta Plasma Consortium (RPC) [Carr et al., 2007] Ion Composition Analyzer (ICA) [Nilsson et al., 2007].

At a later stage, with comet 67P/CG only 1.4 AU distant from the Sun, the same instrument solely measured cometary ions [Edberg et 2016a] at a distance between 300 and 1500 km from the nucleus.

Currents in Cometary Comae Martin Volwerk

So the diamagnetic cavity then!

From the HASER model!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Sol88 emphasizes his insanity by expecting me to answer his demented post (other than pointing out insane he is!)) when we have 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 Mar 2020).
Already answered, irrelevant to Sol88's insanity, demented questions.
Insane lies about posts and posters.
Insane obsession with the words "electric field".

Insane obsession?

Well the you've forgotten the charged dust and double layers champ!

oh, and The

Quote:

Insane obsession

with water on asteroids formed via

Quote:

An alternative mechanism to explain the presence of water ice on 24 Themis is similar to the hypothesized formation of water on the surface of the Moon by solar wind. Trace amounts of water would be continuously produced by high-energy solar protons impinging oxide minerals present at the surface of the asteroid. The hydroxyl surface groups (S–OH) formed by the collision of protons (H+) with oxygen atoms present at oxide surface (S=O) can further be converted in water molecules (H2O) adsorbed onto the oxide minerals surface. The chemical rearrangement supposed at the oxide surface could be schematically written as follows:

on Asteroids

Quote:

The protons implant themselves into the soil all over the planet about 10 nanometers deep, forming in the minerals the hydroxyl groups (OH), which diffuse to the surface, where the heat does the rest.

on Mercury

and

Quote:

Production

Lunar water has two potential origins: water-bearing comets (and other bodies) striking the Moon, and in situ production. It has been theorized that the latter may occur when hydrogen ions (protons) in the solar wind chemically combine with the oxygen atoms present in the lunar minerals (oxides, silicates etc.) to produce small amounts of water trapped in the minerals' crystal lattices or as hydroxyl groups, potential water precursors.[58] (This mineral-bound water, or mineral surface, must not be confused with water ice.)

The hydroxyl surface groups (X–OH) formed by the reaction of protons (H+) with oxygen atoms accessible at oxide surface (X=O) could further be converted in water molecules (H2O) adsorbed onto the oxide mineral's surface. The mass balance of a chemical rearrangement supposed at the oxide surface could be schematically written as follows:

on the Moon.

but comets on the other hand...they are special being the leftovers form the formation of the solar system.

I thought we had all agreed now that comets are

Quote:

The classical model of comets as dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950) has focused most models of comets on ices. The more we visit comets, the dustier they appear. With 67P's dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside.

which reinforces A'Hearn's assertion of

Quote:

(c) What are comets made of?

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].

So comet smashing into the moon is a bust!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 emphasizes his insanity with a list of his insane obsessions.
Sol88 emphasizes his insanity with The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.

Previous post: Sol88 emphasizes his insanity with yet another insane lie.
Citing Currents in Cometary Comae by Martin Volwerk illustrates how utterly insane Sol88 is with his demented lies about the Haser model.

Quote:

Using this, the radial dependence of the neutral gas density Nn can be formulated by the Haser [1957] model[/b]: N r Q V r r V n n 4 e e 2 exp . (30.6)

Sol88 is insane that the Haser model is about ices and highlights neutral gases in the Haser model!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Sol88 emphasizes his insanity with a list of his insane obsessions.
Sol88 emphasizes his insanity with The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.

Previous post: Sol88 emphasizes his insanity with yet another insane lie.
Citing Currents in Cometary Comae by Martin Volwerk illustrates how utterly insane Sol88 is with his demented lies about the Haser model.

Sol88 is insane that the Haser model is about ices and highlights neutral gases in the Haser model!

Yup, sounds like mainstream circular reasoning to me too!

Ummm... were do the mainstream think the neutral gases come from sport?

hint

Quote:

One way to characterize water production rates in comets is to calculate an equivalent surface area of water ice, which when exposed to sunlight at the comet's heliocentric distance, is required to produce the observed water vapor.

WATER PRODUCTION BY COMET 103P/HARTLEY 2 OBSERVED WITH THE SWAN INSTRUMENT ON THE SOHO SPACECRAFT

Water vapour/neutral gas same thing!

So, in summary and to reiterate Patzold

Quote:

From the discussion above it seems to be clear that the lost gas mass was strongly overestimated by the gas instruments and these teams work all on more realistic estimates

The Nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko – Part I: The global view – nucleus mass, mass-loss, porosity, and implications

Lift ya game! your slipping.

[Sol88]

Quote:

A large dust-to-water mass ratio implies that the nucleus matrix is non-volatile, so that ground-based experiments (Grün et al. 1993) and thermo-physical models of cometary nuclei (Prialnik, Benkoff & Podolak 2004), assuming an ice matrix, may provide misleading results: they should be repeated assuming a refractory matrix, which has micro-properties far from ices.

Misleading results, Just saying...

[Sol88]

Quote:

This water is coming from 67P's interior and is frozen inside the cold upper surface layers during the night (De Sanctis et al. 2015).

Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

Mmmm...sounds very familiar...

Quote:

The protons implant themselves into the soil all over the planet about 10 nanometers deep, forming in the minerals the hydroxyl groups (OH), which diffuse to the surface, where the heat does the rest.

Mercury's 400 C heat may help it make its own ice

Interestingly seems to be a common process.

Now, if only Comets were not so misleadingly thought of as mostly ice but instead had plenty of H, O and C.

Say as Organic compounds on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko revealed by COSAC mass spectrometry found.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Sol88 is highly fact resistant.

Facts are...

Quote:

although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock,

Quote:

The nucleus body presents itself therefore as a highly porous dusty body with little ice.

Quote:

The classical model of comets as dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950)has focused most models of comets on ices. The more we visit comets, the dustier they appear. With 67P’s dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside. Jean-Pierre Bibring proposes a new word naming this stuff, ‘organic(e)s’, where the modest content of ices (within brackets) well summarizes the dominant non-volatile component.

Seems no one here can accept this as a fact.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

WATER PRODUCTION BY COMET 103P/HARTLEY 2 OBSERVED WITH THE SWAN INSTRUMENT ON THE SOHO SPACECRAFT


So, ergo lots of OH + H = comets are MOSTLY ICE!

AND THERE ARE NO OR EVER HAVE BEEN ANY DISTRIBUTED WATER SOURCES!

Head so far up ya clacker, you have trouble realizing...

Comets are mostly REFRACTORY material AND HYDROCARBONS!

Wakey, wakey, woo boy. That is the same comet that produced this;



It matters not what was seen in 2010 by SWAN. We sent a bloody spacecraft there in 2011. And measured the water production.And the CO₂ production. And saw the ice spectroscopically and visually. So, really, really stupid comment, eh? (rhetorical). Albeit typical of this poster.