The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

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

but

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

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

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!

It is all coming from ice. Where the hell else would it come from? Another dumb comment, eh? (rhetorical). And if you want to know about how the DC forms, then go and read the papers by the experts. That is, those that know what they are talking about, based on both theory and observation. Unlike you, who doesn't understand the first thing about the subject.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

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...

How stupid is that? (rhetorical). What is the amount of water produced per unit area on Mercury or the Moon? Less in one year, over the entire surface, than was excavated at Tempel 1 in solid ice in a split second. So, another dumb comment, eh? (rhetorical). And how many times do you need to be told that the solar wind is not reaching the comet for the period when it is most active? Stop making dumb comments.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

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

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.

I keep telling you woo boy, it is not my claim that friction stops the magnetic field. It is the accepted view of the scientists who study these things. So stop lying. Dont you ever get sick of lying to support your idiotic, unscientific beliefs? It would appear not. And the only electric fields, other than the solar wind field, are due to outgassing. No outgassing, no fields. How many times before it penetrates your thick skull? Go read Deca's paper. What is the cause of the fields? And the dust is a total irrelevance to the DC. And likely isn't even charged at such close distances.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Currents in Cometary Comae Martin Volwerk

So the diamagnetic cavity then!

From the HASER model!

Nope, from observation. It exists, and therefore renders your unscientific woo moot. And we knew that since 1985! Over 20 years before the invention of your unscientific woo! Who was too dumb to check the literature? Yep, the idiot Thornhill, and all the idiots that he conned with his woo. Not our fault that they are all idiots.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

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

Mmmm...sounds very familiar...

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.

And another dumb and irrelevant comment. Solar wind not implanting anything, woo boy. Not reaching comet. Comprende? For the millionth time. Put brain in gear before making dumb comments. It is tiresome.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Facts are...





Seems no one here can accept this as a fact.

Seems someone here can't read. Impactor. 2005. Tempel 1. Thousands of tonnes of solid ice excavated from a little hole a few hundred meters in diameter, and about 20 meters deep. Do the maths, woo boy.

[jonesdave116]

Here's a surprise (not). A similar experiment to that carried out at Tempel 1 was carried out at asteroid Ryugu. All jolly interesting. No ice or water vapour though. Who'd have thunk?
Perhaps Sol can do a mathematical comparison of the crater size vs impactor velocity and mass? Not holding my breath.

An artificial impact on the asteroid 162173 Ryugu formed a crater in the gravity-dominated regime
Arakawa, M. et al.
https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...cience.aaz1701

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Currents in Cometary Comae Martin Volwerk

So the diamagnetic cavity then!

From the HASER model!

Wow. you still cannot read comprehensively, can you?
That quote had absolutely nothing to do with a diamagnetic cavity.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

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

Mmmm...sounds very familiar...

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.

So much fun, doing kitchentable physics, just combining all kinds of unrelated quotes from papers, making up a "model" of how things should be, without ever having to worry about whether this "model" actually agrees qualitatively and quantitatively with real data measured around comets.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Facts are...

Seems no one here can accept this as a fact.

So let's call it "rock", the meteoritic matrix from the original Whipple model.

That does not change anything.

It was not a "surprise" that the comet was active at 3.8 AU distance from the sun (as sol claims), as general cometary physics knowledge states already that comets become active when the enter the region inside of Jupiter's orbit, as there the solar insulation is enough to start sublimation.

Observations of the water and carbon(di)oxyde clouds around a comet show us how much of that gas is there. Simple calculations about the surface area of the comet and the density of the solar wind show that there is no possible way that the water is created by solar wind proton impact onto the surface, let alone the carbon(di)oxyde.

This is an epic fail of the EC idea.

And then I won't even start about what nonsense it is to grab titbits from papers with the comet at very different stages of activity. Different levels of activity mean different comet-solar wind interactions. But hey, why worry about that, if you don't have to care about a qualitative and quantitative agreement with actual observations.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 shows his insiatiy with his usual insane lies.
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 goes insane yet again about the Haser model. The model starts with the physical fact that comets have ices and that the laws of physics says the ices must sublimate when comets get near to the Sun. We detect the resulting outgassing and used to plug that into the Haser model to get estimates of the daughter products.

Sol88 goes insane yet again with demented questions. He knows that comets have ices, that the laws of physics says the ices must sublimate when comets get near to the Sun and thus outgassing must happen.

Sol88 goes insane yet again with insane lies about science.
WATER PRODUCTION BY COMET 103P/HARTLEY 2 OBSERVED WITH THE SWAN INSTRUMENT ON THE SOHO SPACECRAFT
Sol88 is insane enough to quote basic science from that paper:

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.

The observed water vapor has to come from sublimating water ices. So we can do a calculation with that water ice over the surface of the comet.

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

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

This is a measurement of lost gas from 67P, something the utter insanity of Sol88 says does not happen !

Next post: Sol88 emphasizes his insanity yet again with insane lies about science.

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.

This is a comment that 2 specific kinds of experiments and models may be misleading because they use ice-only matrix. Obviously applying the results to the one and only comet 67P, needs to be checked again because 67P has a large dust-to-water mass ratio.

Next post: Sol88 emphasizes his insanity yet again with insane lies about science, his complete insanity that Mercury is a comet, madness that interior = surface !
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

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).

This is about water ices inside the nucleus of 67P.
Mercury's 400 C heat may help it make its own ice is about the planet Mercury, a temperature of 400 C (comets are < 0 degrees) and solar wind protons embedding themselves in the surface soil (no soil on comets!).

We have known that comet surfaces have organic compounds for decades. Organic compounds on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko revealed by COSAC mass spectrometry confirms that textbook astronomy for 67P.

Next post: Sol88 emphasizes his insanity yet again with insane insults of astronomers.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

It was not a "surprise" that the comet was active at 3.8 AU distance from the sun (as sol claims), as general cometary physics knowledge states already that comets become active when the enter the region inside of Jupiter's orbit, as there the solar insulation is enough to start sublimation.

Was I right that another part of Sol88's insanity was citing a result from when 67P was travelling outward from the Sun?
Vertical structure of the near-surface expanding ionosphere of comet 67P probed by Rosetta

Quote:

The plasma environment has been measured for the first time near the surface of a comet. This unique data set has been acquired at 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko during ESA/Rosetta spacecraft's final descent on 2016 September 30. The heliocentric distance was 3.8 au and the comet was weakly outgassing.

I would expect residual heat to play a factor in maintaining outgassing to past the current frost line that 67P would pass on its inward journey.

Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 seems to have weak outgassing before it hit Jupiter. I guess that is because the fragmentation of the comet exposed fresh ices, especially CO2.
This may be yet another debunking of Sol88's demented dogma. His insanity of comets being actual rocks, etc. in a massive solar electric field should not allow them to suddenly outgas.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Here's a surprise (not). A similar experiment to that carried out at Tempel 1 was carried out at asteroid Ryugu. All jolly interesting. No ice or water vapour though. Who'd have thunk?
Perhaps Sol can do a mathematical comparison of the crater size vs impactor velocity and mass? Not holding my breath.

An artificial impact on the asteroid 162173 Ryugu formed a crater in the gravity-dominated regime
Arakawa, M. et al.
https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...cience.aaz1701

They never actually looked for water vapor or ice, why would they?

They hit a boulder!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

So let's call it "rock", the meteoritic matrix from the original Whipple model.

That does not change anything.

It was not a "surprise" that the comet was active at 3.8 AU distance from the sun (as sol claims), as general cometary physics knowledge states already that comets become active when the enter the region inside of Jupiter's orbit, as there the solar insulation is enough to start sublimation.

Observations of the water and carbon(di)oxyde clouds around a comet show us how much of that gas is there. Simple calculations about the surface area of the comet and the density of the solar wind show that there is no possible way that the water is created by solar wind proton impact onto the surface, let alone the carbon(di)oxyde.

This is an epic fail of the EC idea.

And then I won't even start about what nonsense it is to grab titbits from papers with the comet at very different stages of activity. Different levels of activity mean different comet-solar wind interactions. But hey, why worry about that, if you don't have to care about a qualitative and quantitative agreement with actual observations.

Tell me about the ORGANICS on 67P, tusenfem, how do they play into the H, O, C mix?

Seems you only need a way of splitting and recombining of endless chains of H, O and C.

If we only had some way for the ions and electrons to gain energy, I dont know say like an electric field?

Quote:

Plasma chemical reactions that require an energy threshold are initiated by electrons, which have a relatively high mean kinetic energy of a few electron volts. Therefore, the class of elementary processes described below involves cold heavy particles and electrons with typical energies of 1–10 eV

Plasma Sources Science and Technology Plasma chemistry and surface processes of negative ions


Talking about epic fails, the HASER model and that the quote had absolutely nothing to do with a diamagnetic cavity.

More Q bigger the cavity!

All from electron/ion friction!


How do they guestimate Q to calculate the diamagnetic cavity extent?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

They never actually looked for water vapor or ice, why would they?

They hit a boulder!

Correct. Asteroids are rocks, comets aren't. Finally!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Tell me about the ORGANICS on 67P, tusenfem, how do they play into the H, O, C mix?

Seems you only need a way of splitting and recombining of endless chains of H, O and C.

If we only had some way for the ions and electrons to gain energy, I dont know say like an electric field?


Plasma Sources Science and Technology Plasma chemistry and surface processes of negative ions


Talking about epic fails, the HASER model and that the quote had absolutely nothing to do with a diamagnetic cavity.

More Q bigger the cavity!

All from electron/ion friction!


How do they guestimate Q to calculate the diamagnetic cavity extent?

Gibberish. You are not getting water from organics. Total nonsense. And the only electric field (which won't do anything to split organics, FFS) is due to the outgassing. No outgassing, no field. Try again.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

So let's call it "rock", the meteoritic matrix from the original Whipple model.

That does not change anything.


This is an epic fail of the EC idea.

Lets call it rock

Quote:

For very high F nucleus values, the nucleus is highly porous and dusty with very little ice (e.g. for F nucleus = 7, the ice content is about 7% for porosities between 68% and 80%, respectively). A variation in porosity by 1% beyond the 70% implies a steep increase in Fnucleus, leaving only a tiny fractional ice content. As a reminder, the upper bound on the porosity is 73% to 85% for a highly porous stony body without ice for the selected dust material density range.

Quote:

The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta.

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

Patzold


So A'Hearn maybe not such a crackpot after all

Quote:

out.
(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 [2017

Comets: looking ahead

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Lets call it rock

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

Patzold


So A'Hearn maybe not such a crackpot after all Comets: looking ahead

There is no rock at comets. Stop lying. It is getting pathetic.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

It was not a "surprise" that the comet was active at 3.8 AU distance from the sun (as sol claims), as general cometary physics knowledge states already that comets become active when the enter the region inside of Jupiter's orbit, as there the solar insulation is enough to start sublimation.

Oh??? ok then...

Quote:

7 THERMO-PHYSICAL MODELS FAIL

[quote]The 67P surface has a very low thermal inertia/QUOTE]

Quote:

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.

IS the dust charged?

[jonesdave116]

[quote=Sol88;13030113]Oh??? ok then...

Quote:

The 67P surface has a very low thermal inertia/QUOTE]


IS the dust charged?

Of no relevance whatsoever. Deal with your failed woo. No electric woo, no rock. No mechanisms. No science. Zilch. A complete and utter failure. As complete as it was predictable. Predictable because it is scientifically impossible nonsense, dreamed up by clueless Velikovskians with zero knowledge of the relevant science.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 emphasizes his insanity with lies about posts and posters.
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).

Perhaps Sol can do a mathematical comparison of the crater size vs impactor velocity and mass?
jonesdave116 cited An artificial impact on the asteroid 162173 Ryugu formed a crater in the gravity-dominated regime as an example of how science is done.
This paper emphasizes Sol88 cowardliness for many years of not running an impact calculator for Deep Impact on rock and seeing that the size of the resulting crater is a magnitude less than the crater on Tempel 1.

Next post: Sol88 emphasizes his insanity with:

• Demented questions
• His usual insane "electric field" obsession.
• Persists with insane lies about the Haser model and science.
• Usual ignorant delusions about mainstream comets to derail from his demented dogma.

Next post: Sol88 emphasizes his insanity with insane lies about posts and posters.
tusenfem wrote So let's call it "rock", the meteoritic matrix from the original Whipple model. Anyone with a brain knows that Whipple wrote an ices and dust comet model. That "rock" in quotes is a mixture of ices and dust !
Sol88's usual insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers linking them with his demented dogma, etc.[/
No astronomer would be as insane as Sol88 and believe in comets being rocks blasted from planets, etc. because that is not what the real world, physical evidence says.

Next post: Sol88 emphasizes his insanity with gibberish and insane quotes.
A plasma physicists has written papers on comets wrote It was not a "surprise" that the comet was active at 3.8 AU distance from the sun (as sol claims), as general cometary physics knowledge states already that comets become active when the enter the region inside of Jupiter's orbit, as there the solar insulation is enough to start sublimation.
That is cometary science from a comet scientist !
A "The 67P surface has a very low thermal inertia" quote by Sol88 shows his usual insane ignorance of science. Thermal inertia

Quote:

the degree of slowness with which the temperature of a body approaches that of its surroundings and which is dependent upon its absorptivity, its specific heat, its thermal conductivity, its dimensions, and other factors

Perhaps double insanity from Sol88. I suspect that a factor in 67P being weakly active at 3.8 AU on its outward leg was because it kept heat from its approach to the Sun. Very low thermal inertia of the surface says the surface will retain heat!

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

How do they guestimate Q to calculate the diamagnetic cavity extent?

More evidence that Sol88 does not understand how things work. The extent of the diamagnetic cavity is measured.

The rest, sure, show me.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Lets call it rock

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

Patzold


So A'Hearn maybe not such a crackpot after all Comets: looking ahead

Sol88 is completely failing to understand the point of the message.
Calling it rock still does not make the EC idea work, for basic physical reasons, there is not enough surface nor enough incoming solar wind to create the measured gas and plasma densities around the comet. (and measured does not mean using a haser model)

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Oh??? ok then...

Quote:

The 67P surface has a very low thermal inertia

IS the dust charged?

Sure, probably every cometary surface has low thermal inertia.
That does not mean that sublimation cannot take place.

Charged dust has nothing to do with this, keep on track there down under.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

More evidence that Sol88 does not understand how things work. The extent of the diamagnetic cavity is measured.

The rest, sure, show me.

Quote:

Goetz et al. (2016) reported that the extension of the cavity was much larger than theoretically expected, based on the analysis of magnetic field data during one cavity detection on 2015 July 26. The authors ruled out that an anomalously high neutral gas or dust background was responsible for the extension and showed that the measured outgassing rate combined with a simple model was not high enough either. Instead the authors speculated that the detection of the cavity was due to an instability propagating along the boundary, which increased the distance of the cavity boundary from the nucleus. The particle signatures, especially the electron distribution inside the diamagnetic cavity at 67P was studied by Nemeth et al. (2016) to reveal that there are significant dropouts of electrons in the 100 and 200 eV range.

Structure and evolution of the diamagnetic cavity at comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

Theoretical? Whoops...

The dust is charged!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Sure, probably every cometary surface has low thermal inertia.
That does not mean that sublimation cannot take place.

Charged dust has nothing to do with this, keep on track there down under.

Charged dust has everything to do with this...I’m on track.

You have a comet made out of not rock but meteoric matrix with little to no ice , charge seperation, electric fields and electric currents.

the ELECTRIC COMETS and me are Right on track.


Mainstream just have to take that initial step... comets are NOT Dirtysnowballs!

This so far as been “proven”.

Except for 103P, jd116’s “special” comet.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Sol88 is completely failing to understand the point of the message.
Calling it rock still does not make the EC idea work, for basic physical reasons, there is not enough surface nor enough incoming solar wind to create the measured gas and plasma densities around the comet. (and measured does not mean using a haser model)

Too simplistic sport.


You got far more going on than simpleton Dirtysnowball model, which is not the correct model, obviously.

So, you back jonesdave116 on the outgassing produced ion/electron neutral friction?

That traps electrons and accelerates ions, this outgsssing produced diamagnetic cavity?

Ok then

More than enough H, O and C to make some wonderful organic molecules along with a bit of water.

This dribble of water gets jd116 and most mainstream scientists knickers all wet...comets are Dirtysnowballs!

As pointed out by Patzold

Quote:

The total lost mass M determined by RSI puts hard constraints on the lost gas and dust masses. The dust-to-gas mass ratio Fcoma is less than 0.5 for the lost gas masses reported by the gas instruments. It seems, however, that the lost gas masses were overestimated by the instruments and the teams of the gas instruments work hard on realistic final values.

and

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. Between the sizes of 0.1 and 1 mm, 99 per cent of the dust mass is in the form of compact particles, denser than the nucleus.

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

So, yeah ROCK or tusenfems “ meteoritic matrix”

[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).

tusenfem wrote More evidence that Sol88 does not understand how things work. The extent of the diamagnetic cavity is measured. in reply to Sol88's demented question. Q (outgassing) is a measurement and calculated value. Q is not the only factor used to calculate the diamagnetic cavity extent.
Sol88 is so insane that he thinks that theoretical calculations not matching measurements is a bad thing ! That is 1 way that how science progresses! The extent of the diamagnetic cavity at 67P not matching theoretical calculation means there is a factor not being included. Not Sol88's demented insanity about vague "electric fields" because the theory will include electromagnetism. Actual effects that the astronomers looked at.

Sol88 is so insane that he thinks that merely writing "charged dust" is anything but a demonstration that he is deluded.
We know that ice and dust particles exist in comets coma. We know the easily understood physics that they will be charged by sunlight, etc.. From memory, a few hundred extra or less electrons for particles made of billions of atoms.

Next post: Sol88 is so insane that he thinks that writing "charged dust" is anything but a demonstration that he is deluded.
Sol88 emphasizes his maybe decades old insanity by repeating his insanity about comets.

Next post: Sol88 quotes and goes insane about posts and posters.

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Sol88 is completely failing to understand the point of the message.
Calling it rock still does not make the EC idea work, for basic physical reasons, there is not enough surface nor enough incoming solar wind to create the measured gas and plasma densities around the comet. (and measured does not mean using a haser model)

Sol88 has a personal delusion about the ices we detect at comets except when he goes completely insane that there are no ices! His years long delusion is that it is the solar wind acting on actual rock. So tusenfem pointed out yet again that is impossible. I recall that years ago and buried in the thread is a calculation showing that is impossible.
Sol88 emphasizes his insanity yet again.

• More pitiful gibberish about the mainstream diamagnetic cavity.
• Repeats his insane lies.
  There are billions of tonnes of ices on comets, e.g. comet 67P is at least 17% ices and has a mass of ‎(9.982±0.003)×10^12 kg.
• Repeated quotes that he is insanely demented about.
  
  Quote:

  The total lost mass M determined by RSI puts hard constraints on the lost gas and dust masses. The dust-to-gas mass ratio Fcoma is less than 0.5 for the lost gas masses reported by the gas instruments. It seems, however, that the lost gas masses were overestimated by the instruments and the teams of the gas instruments work hard on realistic final values.
  All this means is that the realistic final values are still to come when that paper was published.
  N.B. This is irrelevant to Sol88's decades(s) old about comets being rock, etc. The measured gas from sublimating ices and dust masses in the coma (Fcoma!) are not the ratio for the nucleus.
  
  Quote:

  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. Between the sizes of 0.1 and 1 mm, 99 per cent of the dust mass is in the form of compact particles, denser than the nucleus.
  This is Sol88 as usual going insane about how science works! We have found that 67P has a dust-to-water ratio of 6 (thus at least ~17% ices). Anyone with a brain will understand that means spending more time modeling mixtures of ices and dust with more dust than ice - but not Sol88 !
  This is Sol88 insanely highlighting mainstream facts about 67P. We have known for years that dust is dominant at 67P and that is not a problem for mainstream comets.

ETA: Sol88 shows his maybe decades old insanity by not citing these mainstream ices and dust comet papers.
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view
The Nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko – Part I: The global view – nucleus mass, mass-loss, porosity, and implications

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

So, you back jonesdave116 on the outgassing produced ion/electron neutral friction?

I keep telling you, you bloody liar - it is not my claim. That is the scientific consensus among the people who understand it. That does not include you. So, quit with your pathetic lying.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

More than enough H, O and C to make some wonderful organic molecules along with a bit of water.

No there is not. And you do not have a mechanism to even suggest how that might happen. Due to having clue zero about any relevant science. Quit making things up.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

So, yeah ROCK or tusenfems “ meteoritic matrix”

So, more lies from the liar. There is no rock. Point out the detection of this rock. Which instrument? What sort of rock? What was its strength? Thermal inertia? Or just admit that you are lying. As usual.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Structure and evolution of the diamagnetic cavity at comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

Theoretical? Whoops...

The dust is charged!

First and foremost, the distance of the DC is measured.
Of course, from experience at comet 1P/Halley we found a relation that worked to calculate the distance of the DC.
But for an intermediately active comet (67P) it did not work, and thus other processes need to be looked at, as the distance seems to be also related to the electron collisionopause.

Still, dust being charged or not has nothing to do with it.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Charged dust has everything to do with this...I’m on track.

You have a comet made out of not rock but meteoric matrix with little to no ice , charge seperation, electric fields and electric currents.

the ELECTRIC COMETS and me are Right on track.


Mainstream just have to take that initial step... comets are NOT Dirtysnowballs!

This so far as been “proven”.

Except for 103P, jd116’s “special” comet.

Now, please try to write comprehensively, please.

I would advise you to talk to your EC friends (if there are any left, actually, Sol88 seems to be the lone proponent) and get them to actually "show us the money", show us how the observed water and carbon(di)oxide densities can be created by the solar wind, especially when the solar wind cavity has formed around the comet.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Now, please try to write comprehensively, please.

I would advise you to talk to your EC friends (if there are any left, actually, Sol88 seems to be the lone proponent) and get them to actually "show us the money", show us how the observed water and carbon(di)oxide densities can be created by the solar wind, especially when the solar wind cavity has formed around the comet.

Electric magic! Easy.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

First and foremost, the distance of the DC is measured.
Of course, from experience at comet 1P/Halley we found a relation that worked to calculate the distance of the DC.
But for an intermediately active comet (67P) it did not work, and thus other processes need to be looked at, as the distance seems to be also related to the electron collisionopause.

Still, dust being charged or not has nothing to do with it.

Indeed, indeed.

Also, the dust is charged...and a charged particle collisionopause is pure fantasy. The electrons are not coupled to the neutrals and are more than energetic enough to facilitate plasma chemistry.

Every so once in a while a neutral is produced.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Indeed, indeed.

Also, the dust is charged...and a charged particle collisionopause is pure fantasy. The electrons are not coupled to the neutrals and are more than energetic enough to facilitate plasma chemistry.

Every so once in a while a neutral is produced.

Oh for the love of good things, you don't even understand the physical terms! This discussion is over, it is pointles and too irritating to be combined with lock down and home office.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Indeed, indeed.

Also, the dust is charged...and a charged particle collisionopause is pure fantasy. The electrons are not coupled to the neutrals and are more than energetic enough to facilitate plasma chemistry.

Every so once in a while a neutral is produced.

And I keep having to tell you that the ratio of neutrals to ions/ electrons in the DC is ~ 1 million:1. Deal with it.

[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).

We know that there is charged ice and dust grains in comet coma but Sol88's insanity makes him repeat "charged dust" and miss out the charged ice grains again and again.
We know that there is "plasma chemistry" in plasma such as comet coma. Just not the insane, irrelevant delusions that Sol88 has about chemistry.

Sol88 emphasizes his insanity with insane delusions about collisionopauses.
The electron-neutral collisionopause is not his gibberish of electrons coupling to neutrals. It is the simple fact that elections collide with neutrals and there is a boundary where that becomes important in coma.
Electron-neutral and ion-neutral collisionopause are textbook cometary physics. as anyone with the brain cells to Google can find.
Influence of collisions on ion dynamics in the inner comae of four comets

Quote:

Collisions between cometary neutrals in the inner coma of a comet and cometary ions that have been picked up into the solar wind flow and return to the coma lead to the formation of a broad inner boundary known as a collisionopause. This boundary is produced by a combination of charge transfer and chemical reactions, both of which are important at the location of the collisionopause boundary. Four spacecraft measured ion densities and velocities in the inner region of comets, exploring the part of the coma where an ion-neutral collisionopause boundary is expected to form.

RPC observation of the development and evolution of plasma interaction boundaries at 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

[nadagod]

[quote=Reality Check;13031444]Sol88 emphasizes his insanity yet again.

No kidding I haven't been on here since 2016 and was amazed this nonsense was still going.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Oh for the love of good things, you don't even understand the physical terms! This discussion is over, it is pointles and too irritating to be combined with lock down and home office.

Dude, dont give up you are getting close I feel.

Quote:

So let's call it "rock", the meteoritic matrix from the original Whipple model.

That does not change anything.

Sorta does, does it not?

Quote:

Key Points:
The height to runout length (H/L) of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko landslides ranges between 0.50 and 0.97

67P landslide reveal a rocky-type mechanical behavior indicating that comets are made by consolidated materials

The H/L variability is an indicator of the different volatile content located in the top
few meters of the cometary crust

The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

but

This is a bit of a stretch even for mainstream...


How comets work: nucleus erosion versus dehydration Marco Fulle,1⋆ J. Blum,2 A. Rotundi,3,4 B. Gundlach,2 C. G¨uttler,5 and V. Zakharov


Get ya hand off it, the contortions needed to try and fit the new data is painful to watch.

You cant fit enough ice into 67P to to account for all the dust and porosity!

as attested by Patzold and the RSI experiment.

Comets are essentially ROCKY objects. This introduces a big change to everything.

Anywhoo sucks being locked up but waht do you do?

(Read the new papers)

On the activity of comets: understanding the gas and dust
emission from comet 67/Churyumov-Gerasimenko's
south-pole region during perihelion

Quote:

However, the underlying physical processes are not fully understood.

Of sublmation???

Quote:

We developed a novel thermophysical model to simulate the dust ejection from comet
67/Churyumov-Gerasimenko's south-pole region at perihelion.

Novel all right but if it saves the dirtysnowball then...

Jonesdave116?