The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

I was all excited of course because there was the charge seperation in a mainstream paper with maths and all.

You were all excited because of your lack of comprehension about Deca's papers. Quasi-neutrality is preserved, according to Deca. So, where is this charge separation? What is its areal extent? What is the Debye length, and why is that relevant? All questions which you will not even understand, let alone be able to answer.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

No, the PLASMA and ELECTRIC FIELD stops the solar wind! No neutral gas at all!

Wrong. You will find that the DC is dominated by neutrals at a real comet. And where are you getting plasma from anyway, if the comet isn't outgassing? From the author of the AMPTE paper I linked;

Quote:

Abstract

The dominant forces resisting the transport of magnetic field into the inner coma of a comet are ion mass loading from and friction with the expanding neutral atmosphere. A magnetic cavity is thereby created. Close to it the frictional force is most important. Careful interpretation of the magnetic field profile measured during the Giotto flyby of comet P/Halley reveals the existence of an inward directed component of plasma flow of a few km/s, which drops to zero at the boundary of the cavity. The energy transferred from the neutral gas to the plasma by friction and mass loading is responsible for the strongly elevated ion temperatures outside the magnetic cavity. Fitting of the observed magnetic profile and ion temperature distribution yields quantitative determinations of some crucial parameters of the coma.

Introduction

One important finding of the Giotto mission was that of the existence of a magnetic cavity surrounding the comet nucleus with a radius of the order of 4000 km [Neubauer et al., 1986]. Similar cavities have been created in artificial plasma cloud experiments and exist around unmagnetized planets, like Venus. Although the physics leading to the formation of these magnetic cavities is quite similar for all three examples quoted, there are significant differences, which arise from the different forces balancing the magnetic stresses. These are ion inertia, ion-neutral friction, plasma pressure and, in planetary atmospheres, gravity. The Venusian ionosphere is the location of a complex interplay of all of these forces, e.g. [Cloutier et al., 1987]. In artificial plasma clouds created in weak magnetic fields, the dominant force is the inertia of ions entering the magnetic field [Haerendel, 1983]. For comet P/Halley, it has been shown by Ip and Axford [1982], Cravens [1986] and Ip and Axford [1987] that the dominant force is ion-neutral friction. In the two latter papers, the authors were able to fit the observed magnetic profile with solutions of a simple model based on this concept.

Plasma Transport Near the Magnetic Cavity Surrounding Comet Halley
Haerendel, G. (1987)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....L014i007p00673 (paywalled)

As I mentioned in a previous post, it is likely that Ba and Li were chosen due to short ionisation times. That is confirmed by reading of subsequent papers (this is known as 'research', for the hard of thinking). Ba being ~ 28s, and Li ~ 1 hr. From memory, H₂O is about 10⁶ s.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Discharging in context of a charged rocky body.
<snip>

So, redefining EC discharging, okay.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Right, on neutral-ion friction, are Erik Vigren and Anders I. Eriksson paper Onthe ion-neutral coupling in cometary comae correct with there maths? Assuming so and I assume, and please correct me tusenfem before reality check jumps in, friction and coupling in this context are the same?

No, you are incorrect. The neutrals and ions in Erik's paper are the neutrals sublimating from the nucleus and the ions that are created from these neutrals trhough ionization. This is in the abstract.
Ion-Neutral friction is about cometary neutrals and solar wind ions.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Assuming so,

Assuming INCORRECTLY ...

Originally Posted by Sol88

Aaaand cherry picking quotes

So as for the post above I’m throwing the charged dust leaving the nucleus as visually observed into this complicated mix of all sorts of fun stuff going on.

Typical GIGO

<snip>

Originally Posted by Sol88

So I’m placing some of my eggs in the basket of Deca’s new paper, using believe it or not, kinetic theory for the plasma. His papers a one of the few that actually treat the electrons with respect they deserve, along with the charged dust.

Most of the above where using electrostatics in their papers, imagine plugging in Deca’s four fluid model.

If it is a four fluid model, then it is not a kinetic model.
So make up your mind, please.

<snipping further nonsense>

Originally Posted by Sol88

Is close enough for me to EDM for the initial kick in the guts to get the rock into dust, charged and under the influence of some complicated electric fields including double layers. Discharging.

And now we are at EDM again, in total contrast to the previous definition of "discharging" above.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

So, redefining EC discharging, okay.

Yep, nothing in the mag data, so the woo has to be redefined! So now we have a comet that has a magnetic field on its nucleus of as close to zero as makes no difference, trying to balance its non-existent charge to the surrounding quasi-neutral plasma of the solar wind! And yet this strangely doesn't happen to asteroids. And Sol refuses to tell us why.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

That's ok mate we all make mistakes. Thank you for correcting it. ...

I made a minor reading comprehension mistake. Sol88 made the major mistake of becoming a deluded follower of an obviously demented cult and spewing out decades of insane lies, ignorance and delusions. As he quoted that part of my post was For others who are not deluded followers of a demented cult
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 13 Feb 2020).

Sol88's "No neutral gas at all!" insanity was about comet coma which are plasma. Plasma is a mixture of mostly neutral gas and some ionized gas. Comet coma shield their nucleus from the solar wind using neutral and ionized gas.
"No, the PLASMA and ELECTRIC FIELD stops the solar wind! No neutral gas at all!". The AMPTE experiment shows that PLASMA (neutral and ionized gas) and ELECTRIC FIELD stops the solar wind.
And of course this brings up more of Sol88's insanity. This is not Sol88's demented dogma about an imaginary, massive solar electric field + electrical discharge delusions + industrial process of EDM on comets insanity !

Sol88's usual insane delusion that any mainstream paper is about Sol88's demented dogma or his own delusions.
Recalling and Updating Research on Diamagnetic Cavities: Experiments, Theory, Simulations by Dan Winske1*, Joseph D. Huba2, Christoph Niemann3 and Ari Le1 is a obviously review of real science in the real world, not Sol88's insane delusions about diamagnetic cavities.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Yep, nothing in the mag data, so the woo has to be redefined! So now we have a comet that has a magnetic field on its nucleus of as close to zero as makes no difference, trying to balance its non-existent charge to the surrounding quasi-neutral plasma of the solar wind! And yet this strangely doesn't happen to asteroids. And Sol refuses to tell us why.

Strangely enough, it happens on more asteroids than we previously believed.

The list of active asteroids is expanding. The more we look, the more we see. Same process on comets as on asteroids, they are a continuum...

The more electric potential, the more "outgassing"!

Spatial separation of charges is not a quasi-neutral plasma no more! The comet is violating the solar wind plasma quasi neutrality!

Suck it up butter cup! The electric comet

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

No, you are incorrect. The neutrals and ions in Erik's paper are the neutrals sublimating from the nucleus and the ions that are created from these neutrals trhough ionization. This is in the abstract.
Ion-Neutral friction is about cometary neutrals and solar wind ions.



Assuming INCORRECTLY ...



Typical GIGO

<snip>



If it is a four fluid model, then it is not a kinetic model.
So make up your mind, please.

<snipping further nonsense>



And now we are at EDM again, in total contrast to the previous definition of "discharging" above.

Ahhh, my blue you are talking about

Quote:

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

So very confusing this ion-neutral drag. Seems jd116 beloved quasi neutrality is in violation.

Anywhoo, in relation to the diamagnetic cavity and ion-neutral coupling...

Quote:

(i) For a logarithmically decaying potential the ion-neutral decoupling
distance drops to 15–40 per cent of its field-free value.
The decrease is more significant the higher the electron temperature
is [the decrease to 15 per cent (40 per cent) of the field-free
value corresponds to the case of electrons at 10 eV (1 eV)].

(ii) The diamagnetic cavity crossings at 67P occurred (maybe coincidentally)
near the calculated rin while the cavity of 1P/Halley
was crossed well within rin (we refer here to calculations using the
logarithmically decaying potential, equation (11), with T = 10 eV).

(iii) This may explain why mean ion velocities elevated above the
neutral outgassing velocity were seen in the cavity of 67P (Odelstad
et al. 2018) while not in 1P/Halley (Balsiger et al. 1986).

On the ion-neutral coupling in cometary comae

Quote:

Our simulation results show that an increase of the electron pressure,
introduced by a parametrized local electron heating process,
leads to an ambipolar electric field that is strong enough to push
out the cometary ions and create a magnetic field-free region.

A possible mechanism for the formation of magnetic field dropouts in the coma of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

The diamagnetic cavity is NOT caused by jonesdave116's make believe fairetale mechanism!

The Comet is fully a kinetic model. Electrons rule the roost!

Problem is, mainstream have no mechanism for this extra energy from a purely sublimating dirtysnowball!

Now, if the nucleus were charged...

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Wrong. You will find that the DC is dominated by neutrals at a real comet. And where are you getting plasma from anyway, if the comet isn't outgassing? From the author of the AMPTE paper I linked;



Plasma Transport Near the Magnetic Cavity Surrounding Comet Halley
Haerendel, G. (1987)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....L014i007p00673 (paywalled)

As I mentioned in a previous post, it is likely that Ba and Li were chosen due to short ionisation times. That is confirmed by reading of subsequent papers (this is known as 'research', for the hard of thinking). Ba being ~ 28s, and Li ~ 1 hr. From memory, H₂O is about 10⁶ s.

Quote:

Abstract

The dominant forces resisting the transport of magnetic field into the inner coma of a comet are ion mass loading from and friction with the expanding neutral atmosphere. A magnetic cavity is thereby created. Close to it the frictional force is most important. Careful interpretation of the magnetic field profile measured during the Giotto flyby of comet P/Halley reveals the existence of an inward directed component of plasma flow of a few km/s, which drops to zero at the boundary of the cavity. The energy transferred from the neutral gas to the plasma by friction and mass loading is responsible for the strongly elevated ion temperatures outside the magnetic cavity. Fitting of the observed magnetic profile and ion temperature distribution yields quantitative determinations of some crucial parameters of the coma.

No mention of any electric field, jonesdave116?

Quote:

Because of the presence of the electric field, the background ions are initially accelerated in the azimuthal direction, and then by gyromotion in the magnetic field acquire a large positive radial velocity, as the radially
expanding debris ions also start to bend in the magnetic field and
decrease their radial velocity (eventually with their radial velocity
going to zero). This mechanism, known as Larmor coupling, has
been investigated by Bashurin et al. (1983), Hewett et al. (2011)
and more recently by Bondarenko et al. (2017b).

Recalling and Updating Research on Diamagnetic Cavities: Experiments,
Theory, Simulations

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

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

We have found 17 active asteroids and there are hundreds of thousands of other, not active cataloged asteroids. In Sol88's demented cult, they have to be comets!

Next post:
Sol88's insane lies about posts and posters.
Sol88's insanity about the diamagnetic cavity.
Sol88's insane delusions about science (using a kinetic computer model to model plasma does not make comets "kinetic").

Next post: Sol88''s usual insiatiy that scientific papers have to contain whatever words he abysmal ignorance imagines they must contain.
Plasma Transport Near the Magnetic Cavity Surrounding Comet Halley has "ion mass loading" - there are electric fields!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

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

We have found 17 active asteroids and there are hundreds of thousands of other, not active cataloged asteroids. In Sol88's demented cult, they have to be comets!

Next post:
Sol88's insane lies about posts and posters.
Sol88's insanity about the diamagnetic cavity.
Sol88's insane delusions about science (using a kinetic computer model to model plasma does not make comets "kinetic").

Next post: Sol88''s usual insiatiy that scientific papers have to contain whatever words he abysmal ignorance imagines they must contain.
Plasma Transport Near the Magnetic Cavity Surrounding Comet Halley has "ion mass loading" - there are electric fields!

No, but your modeling of the cometary plasma using ideal MHD was totally incorrect.

Using Kinetic theory is allowing you to use electric fields, field aligned currents, charged dust, electron and ion beams...so on and so forth!

You know, the electric comet!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

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

We have found 17 active asteroids and there are hundreds of thousands of other, not active cataloged asteroids. In Sol88's demented cult, they have to be comets!

Was Bennu thought to be active before we sent a probe to it? Just because we have not looked, dose not mean they are not there.

Real problem is distinguishing comets from asteroids...or asteroids from comets!

We used to think comets as MOSTLY ICY bodies and asteroids as MOSTLY ROCKY bodies. Seems poor deluded M.A'Hearn was stark raving bonkers for thinking comets are mostly rocky bodies.

Just look at the reaction from jd116 and his ilk.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Strangely enough, it happens on more asteroids than we previously believed.

The list of active asteroids is expanding. The more we look, the more we see. Same process on comets as on asteroids, they are a continuum...

The more electric potential, the more "outgassing"!

Spatial separation of charges is not a quasi-neutral plasma no more! The comet is violating the solar wind plasma quasi neutrality!

Suck it up butter cup! The electric comet

Wrong. There is no electric potential. And there are millions of asteroids. Many of them on cometary orbits. And you can't explain why they don't turn into comets. You keep running away from the question.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ahhh, my blue you are talking about

So very confusing this ion-neutral drag. Seems jd116 beloved quasi neutrality is in violation.

Anywhoo, in relation to the diamagnetic cavity and ion-neutral coupling...

On the ion-neutral coupling in cometary comae

A possible mechanism for the formation of magnetic field dropouts in the coma of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

The diamagnetic cavity is NOT caused by jonesdave116's make believe fairetale mechanism!

The Comet is fully a kinetic model. Electrons rule the roost!

Problem is, mainstream have no mechanism for this extra energy from a purely sublimating dirtysnowball!

Now, if the nucleus were charged...

It is not my mechanism, liar. It is the expected, observed and predicted mechanism. And the nucleus isn't charged. However, it will be at asteroids. Which do not develop a DC. So you are talking out of your rear end. As usual.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

No mention of any electric field, jonesdave116?

Recalling and Updating Research on Diamagnetic Cavities: Experiments,
Theory, Simulations

What the hell has an electric field got to do with anything? How many times do I need to spell it out for you? Get this through your thick skull; a DC forms where no comet is present. No nucleus. Charged or otherwise. Get it? It is purely down to the gas. Yes? Try to understand that, and stop posting completely irrelevant quotes. NO COMET REQUIRED.. Comprende?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Was Bennu thought to be active before we sent a probe to it? Just because we have not looked, dose not mean they are not there.

Real problem is distinguishing comets from asteroids...or asteroids from comets!

We used to think comets as MOSTLY ICY bodies and asteroids as MOSTLY ROCKY bodies. Seems poor deluded M.A'Hearn was stark raving bonkers for thinking comets are mostly rocky bodies.

Just look at the reaction from jd116 and his ilk.

Pathetic liar.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

What the hell has an electric field got to do with anything? How many times do I need to spell it out for you? Get this through your thick skull; a DC forms where no comet is present. No nucleus. Charged or otherwise. Get it? It is purely down to the gas. Yes? Try to understand that, and stop posting completely irrelevant quotes. NO COMET REQUIRED.. Comprende?

If ya say so champ.

So if I stuck my arse out the window on the ISS and farted, this would cause a diamagnetic cavity?

Gas

[Sol88]

INTERACTION OF A NEUTRAL CLOUD MOVING THROUGH A MAGNETIZED PLASMA

WE have done this before, and yes it is the plasma and electric fields, not GAS that forms the exclusion of the ambient plasma, the diamagnetic cavity.

Ahhh, charge seperation.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88's 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 Feb 2020).
Sol88 is deluded about "using ideal MHD" when resistive MHD exists.
Sol88 insanely lies that modeling cometary plasma with ideal MHD is wrong. When using any MHD on any plasma we have to recognize that this is magnetohydrodynamics. Anyone with a brain can see that MHD is not appropriate for processes where the plasma is not aching as a fluid ("hydro"). Thus there is the complementary technique of particle-in-a-cell computer modeling.
Sol88 insanely lies that a "Kinetic theory" exists. The paper Sol88 is insanely ranting about has standard mainstream particle-in a-cell computer modeling where the kinetics of particles in an electromagnetic field are used.
Sol88 insanely lies that any scientific paper will be about Sol88's demented electric comet dogma.

Next post: Sol88's usual demented questions, insane insults of posters and The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Sol88 spews out his insane insult of M. A’Hearn and all astronomers yet again !.
We (other posters such as jonesdave116) know that M. A’Hearn was not insane and would never state that comets are rocks as in Sol88's demented dogma (blasted from planets, etc.!).

Next post: Sol88's usual insane lies about posts and posters.
jonesdave116 wrote Get this through your thick skull; a DC forms where no comet is present. No nucleus. Charged or otherwise.
The AMPTE experiments did not have kilometer wide comet nuclei made of ices and dust (or even Sol88's demented dogma of actual rock!) !
The AMPTE experiments that formed a diamagnetic cavity were from the AMPTE satellite.
Recalling and Updating Research on Diamagnetic Cavities: Experiments, Theory, Simulations

Quote:

In the decade from the mid 80's to the mid 90's there was considerable interest in the generation of diamagnetic cavities produced by the sub-Alfvenic expansion of heavy ions across a background magnetic field. Examples included the AMPTE and CRRES barium releases in the magnetotail and magnetosphere as well as laser experiments at various laboratories in the United States and the Soviet Union. In all of these experiments field-aligned striations and other small-scale structures were produced as the cavities formed. Local and non-local linear theory as well as full particle (PIC), hybrid, and Hall-MHD simulations (mostly 2-D) were developed and used to understand at least qualitatively the features of these experiments. Much of this review is a summary of this work, with the addition of some new 3-D PIC and Hall-MHD simulations that clarify old issues associated with the origin and evolution of cavities and their surface features. In the last part of this review we discuss recent extensions of the earlier efforts: new space observations of cavity-like structures as well as new laboratory experiments and calculations with greatly improved diagnostics of cavities formed by expansions of laser-produced ions at super-Alfvenic speeds both across and along the background magnetic field.

Next post: Sol88's usual insanity of citing irrelevant mainstream papers to derail from his insanity of demented dogma about comets.
Sol88 has the insane delusion that the solar wind (a plasma) interacting with a cometary coma (a plasma not embedded in a magnetic field!) is the INTERACTION OF A NEUTRAL CLOUD MOVING THROUGH A MAGNETIZED PLASMA. The paper is about outgassing probes moving relative to a magnetized plasma.

[Sol88]

Quote:

Sol88 insanely lies that a "Kinetic theory" exists. The paper Sol88 is insanely ranting about has standard mainstream particle-in a-cell computer modeling where the kinetics of particles in an electromagnetic field are used.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88's usual insanity about posts and posters.
I gave a clear explanation of the difference between MHD and PIC simulations.

They are both valid physics solutions for plasma (ditto for a large amount of other physics with both theoretical solutions and computer simulations). Using 1 says nothing abut the validity of the other.
Sol88 lies about "kinetic theory" existing (it is a computer simulation ) and it is insane to say that any computer simulation shows MHD is wrong. What shows that a theory is wrong is not matching data.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Sol88's usual insanity about posts and posters.

What shows that a theory is wrong is not matching data.

No it doesn’t!

Just look at the following statement:

Quote:

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4]

So everyone’s quickly on the front foot to say the Dirtysnowball is incorrect or the old model is wrong but by your above statement the theory does not match the data but who CARES, the model is correct!

All you have is a more dirty less snowy Dirtysnowball but still a Dirtysnowball. The theory has not changed to match the data.

From afar, a comet WOULD look like they SHOULD be made of MOSTLY ice.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

No it doesn’t!

Just look at the following statement:



So everyone’s quickly on the front foot to say the Dirtysnowball is incorrect or the old model is wrong but by your above statement the theory does not match the data but who CARES, the model is correct!

All you have is a more dirty less snowy Dirtysnowball but still a Dirtysnowball. The theory has not changed to match the data.

From afar, a comet WOULD look like they SHOULD be made of MOSTLY ice.

What the hell are you talking about? You really don't get it do you? All that has changed over time is the understanding of the dust:ice ratio. That is it. Nothing else needs to change. Whatever the ratio, the fact remains that all the interesting stuff is caused by sublimation of ice. That has never changed, due to there being a shed load of evidence to back it up.
You simply do not have sufficient grasp of the relevant science, and are hidebound by your quasi-religious, unscientific beliefs. You don't know enough to realise how much you don't know.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

If ya say so champ.

So if I stuck my arse out the window on the ISS and farted, this would cause a diamagnetic cavity?

Gas

What do the AMPTE papers say? Yes, for the hard of thinking, gas is all that is required. As proven in those experiments, and as predicted by theory. Which part of 'they exploded a canister of gas in the solar wind, and observed a diamagnetic cavity', is not penetrating your skull?
Stop asking idiotic questions that have already been answered. If you can't understand the papers, then say so, instead of posting yet more content-free drivel.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

INTERACTION OF A NEUTRAL CLOUD MOVING THROUGH A MAGNETIZED PLASMA

WE have done this before, and yes it is the plasma and electric fields, not GAS that forms the exclusion of the ambient plasma, the diamagnetic cavity.

Ahhh, charge seperation.

No it is not. Learn to read.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Strangely enough, it happens on more asteroids than we previously believed.

The list of active asteroids is expanding. The more we look, the more we see. Same process on comets as on asteroids, they are a continuum...

The more electric potential, the more "outgassing"!

Have you considered that it could be a dragon inside those asteroids? More fire breathing, more "outgassing".

Just because an observation fits your theory doesn't make the theory true, especially since it also fits competing theories. Your theory has no predictive power.

[tusenfem]

So happy I am with bad internet in india

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

What do the AMPTE papers say? Yes, for the hard of thinking, gas is all that is required. As proven in those experiments, and as predicted by theory. Which part of 'they exploded a canister of gas in the solar wind, and observed a diamagnetic cavity', is not penetrating your skull?
Stop asking idiotic questions that have already been answered. If you can't understand the papers, then say so, instead of posting yet more content-free drivel.

Let me try and get my head around your logic of an obviously much less snowy Dirtysnowball.


So, gas, “outgassing”, stops the solar wind from reaching the nucleus surface, shutting down the previously active grain charging, intense terminator electric fields, nested electric field/s (plasma boundaries), field aligned currents, Field aligned electric fields trapping, reflecting and accelerating charged particles including the charged dust and the removal of all those electrons. (suspiciously like my predicted plasma DOUBLE LAYERS)

And, by the fact that the gas stops (forms the diamagnetic cavity) all influences from the Sun bar infrared and of course totally neglecting the solar plasma and its electric and magnetic fields, this causes the Dirtysnowball to sublimate or “outgass” more vigorously, forming and sustaining the cavity, essentially stoping Sols electric and magnetic influences on the nucleus.

This insolation induced “outgassing”, even if only weak for 67P, is then enough to produce the whole raft of plasma effects we have now observed?



Dude, it’s the plasma and the associated electric fields doing your majikical ”cavity” stuff.

To Me Deca’s paper does not majikicaly stop because of your diamagnetic cavity but the solar wind is stopped by the magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field for SURE.

This is how my beloved double layers work. Plasma sheath has formed way out before “outgassing” from insolation was a thing.

We see this at asteroids as well...

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Let me try and get my head around your logic of an obviously much less snowy Dirtysnowball.


So, gas, “outgassing”, stops the solar wind from reaching the nucleus surface, shutting down the previously active grain charging, intense terminator electric fields, nested electric field/s (plasma boundaries), field aligned currents, Field aligned electric fields trapping, reflecting and accelerating charged particles including the charged dust and the removal of all those electrons. (suspiciously like my predicted plasma DOUBLE LAYERS)

And, by the fact that the gas stops (forms the diamagnetic cavity) all influences from the Sun bar infrared and of course totally neglecting the solar plasma and its electric and magnetic fields, this causes the Dirtysnowball to sublimate or “outgass” more vigorously, forming and sustaining the cavity, essentially stoping Sols electric and magnetic influences on the nucleus.

This insolation induced “outgassing”, even if only weak for 67P, is then enough to produce the whole raft of plasma effects we have now observed?



Dude, it’s the plasma and the associated electric fields doing your majikical ”cavity” stuff.

To Me Deca’s paper does not majikicaly stop because of your diamagnetic cavity but the solar wind is stopped by the magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field for SURE.

This is how my beloved double layers work. Plasma sheath has formed way out before “outgassing” from insolation was a thing.

We see this at asteroids as well...

Complete and utter gibberish. Get it through your thick skull - AMPTE created a DC with no bloody comet anywhere near. Understand? Solar wind not getting anywhere near a comet due to outgassing. As shown. As predicted. It is not rocket science.
And there are no DLs. And a bloody electric field cannot stop the solar wind. Stop talking crap. This is what I mean when I say you are too ignorant of science to realise just how ignorant you are. Even the electric field is only there due to outgassing! Give up. Go away.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

nested electric field/s (plasma boundaries), field aligned currents, Field aligned electric fields trapping, reflecting and accelerating charged particles including the charged dust and the removal of all those electrons.

Pure fantasy.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

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

Sol88 has the demented idea that MHD does not work for plasma because PIC computer simulations of plasma exist.
This post ignores his delusion for

• Sol88 spews out his insane insult of M. A’Hearn and all astronomers yet again !.
• Sol88's demented delusion that comets have been shown to be actual rock.
• Sol88's demented delusion that scientific theories have to be the same as his insane dogma - never changing even when new evidence comes in.
  The physical evidence for comets and thus the scientific model has been and still is that comets are made of ices and dust. A few observations show that some comets may have as little as 17% ices (67P - but note A''Hearn's comment on how unreliable that number is!) or 50% water ices (Tempel 1). It is possible that future observations will show that comets average out to say 33% ices and 77% dust. This will be part of the mainstream model of comets.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

To Me Deca’s paper does not majikicaly stop because of your diamagnetic cavity

Jesus H. Christ! Everything Deca et al are modelling is due to outgassing! No outgassing, and none of that stuff happens. Learn to read. And it is not my DC. It is that predicted by scientists, and observed at Halley, and in the AMPTE experiments, decades before your cult existed.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88's usual insane lies - a track record of over 10 years shows he is determined to never "get his head around" real world science.

A spate of Sol88's insanity:
Sol88's lies by scare quoting the real event of outgassing. Insane gibberish about electrostatic charging of comet grains during low activity, etc. Usual demented obsession with the diamagnetic cavity. Usual insane delusions about scientific papers. Persists with his personal double layer insanity after a plasma scientist says they are impossible at comets due to turbulence. Insanity that active asteroids show any of Sol88's demented delusions about comets.

For others (not a deranged about comets and science Sol88):
The frost line is defined as the distance from a star where gases begin to freeze and thus within which ices begin to sublimate. The current frost line for the Sun is where ices currently start to sublimate. Comets outside of the frost line do not have a coma. No coma allows the solar wind to reach the surface of comet nuclei. Astronomers have known the effects of this for decades - grains on the surface can be electrostatically charged. Electrostatically charged grains can be lofted to move across the nucleus surface and even escape to orbit the nucleus .
When a comet crosses the frost line, ices start to sublimate and outgassing starts. Gas is much better at physically blocking the solar wind than dust. The gas is partially ionized, becomes a plasma and becomes even better at blocking the solar wind until it is blocked entirely. No more electrostatic charging of surface grains.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

To Me Deca’s paper does not majikicaly stop because of your diamagnetic cavity but the solar wind is stopped by the magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field for SURE

This is especially insane from Sol88.
Sol88 has been deluded about cometary paper for years, including "Deca’s paper". Deca has written many papers on standard mainstream comets.

Sol88's current insanity looks to be about
Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet by Deca, et. al (15 May 2017).
Sol88 cannot even understand the title which has the word outgassing !
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko was a weakly outgassing comet as opposed to more flamboyant comets (Halley's?). That may have been a selection criteria for the Rosetta mission. Go to a weakly outgassing comets so that a close approach to the nucleus and landing a probe are possible.

Sol88's new insane "Deca’s paper does not majikicaly stop because of your diamagnetic cavity" delusion
Sol88's new insane "magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field" stopping the solar wind delusion.

The diamagnetic cavity does not stop anything except the magnetic field that does not get into the cavity ! Sunlight goes thru the DC, heats the ices, makes them sublimate as in labs here on Earth and we get outgassing.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

So, gas, “outgassing”, stops the solar wind from reaching the nucleus surface, shutting down the previously active grain charging, intense terminator electric fields,.....

Yep, as described by Nordheim;

Quote:

Eventually, as outgassing rates increase, the solar wind may be sufficiently decelerated (“mass loaded”) for several plasma structures to form, including a weak bow shock (Biermann et al., 1967) and a diamagnetic cavity where the plasma is purely cometary in origin (Ip and Axford, 1987). However, as cometary gas production rates typically vary by several orders of magnitude depending on the comet–Sun distance, the interaction between the comet and the solar wind will change substantially depending on its activity phase.

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity
Nordheim, T. A. et al. (2015)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...3206331500238X


And as pointed out by Deca;

Quote:

As the cometary outgassing activity increases, plasma neutral collisions will play an increasingly significant role in shaping the ionized cometary environment. Collisions account for two significant processes in the context of mass-loaded plasmas: ion-neutral friction and electron cooling. When the gas production rate is high enough, plasma-neutral collisions eventually carve out a nonmagnetized region near the cometary nucleus [56]. This region is shaped by electron-neutral collisions [57]. Taking into account collisions will be necessary to extend this study for more active comets.

And the comet that Deca was modelling was 67P at 3 AU, when it was outgassing ~ 3 l/s.

Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet
Deca, J. et al. (2017)
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstrac...ett.118.205101

And as observed at Halley 30 years ago, and more recently at 67P;

The birth and growth of a solar wind cavity around a comet – Rosetta observations
Behar, E. et al. (2017)
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...2/S396/4036875

Here is the bottom line; no outgassing = nothing for the RPC peeps to do. Oh, they could analyse the solar wind streaming past. All a bit boring, really. And we can just send ACE to the L1 point to do that. So, all the interesting plasma physics at comets is due to outgassing.

[Sol88]

So The Dirtysnowball...

Quote:

Collisions account for two significant processes in the context of mass-loaded plasmas: ion-neutral friction and electron cooling

Right, back hang on, Erik Vigren reckon,

Quote:

The presence of a non-negligible ambipolar electric field and limited importance of ion-neutral collisional coupling are further supported by observations in the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko by plasma instruments onboard Rosetta that reveal ion speeds several times higher than the neutral expansion velocity.

On the ion-neutral coupling in cometary comae

So..

Quote:

Abstract Author’s preprint Amajor point of interest in cometary plasma physics has been the diamagnetic cavity, an unmagnetised region in the inner-most part of the coma. Here, we combine Langmuir and Mutual Impedance Probe measurements to investigate ion velocities and electron temperatures in the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P, probed by the Rosetta spacecraft. We find ion velocities generally in the range 2-4 km/s, significantly above the expected neutral velocity 1 km/s, showing that the ions are (partially) decoupled from the neutrals, indicating that ion-neutral drag was not responsible for balancing the outside magnetic pressure.

Ion velocity and electron temperature inside and around the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P

Still thinking the magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field is a player here... plasma sheaths and double layers...

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So The Dirtysnowball...




Right, back hang on, Erik Vigren reckon, On the ion-neutral coupling in cometary comae

So..

Ion velocity and electron temperature inside and around the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P

Still thinking the magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field is a player here... plasma sheaths and double layers...

Then you are thinking with a part of your body that is below neck level. Do I need to say it again? The ambipolar field only exists due to outgassing. No outgassing, no field. Understand?

[jonesdave116]

Here's a question for Sol88; what attracted you to the unscientific electric comet woo? When it can be shown that;

In 2006, its authors claimed that we weren't detecting water, but OH. However, we had definitively been detecting water at comets since 1985. Including in-situ at Halley. Using both IR and sub-mm.

Its authors claimed that said OH was caused by impossible interactions with the solar wind. However, we already knew from 1986 (and earlier, from theory) that the solar wind wasn't getting close to the nucleus. And that water was detected heading outward at a distance that the solar wind was not reaching.

Its authors claimed that impossible electric woo on the nucleus was supplying the O to impossibly combine with the solar wind. However, we knew from 1986 that inside the DC, where we still detect water, we detect no magnetic field that would be associated with any such impossible electric woo.

Its authors claimed that there was little to no ice at comets, when we had blasted thousands of tonnes of the stuff out of Tempel 1 in 2005.

Its authors claimed that comets were rock, despite us knowing for decades that the density was all wrong for rock. And the size of the crater at Tempel 1.

I could probably go on, but it would get boring. The point is, that this idiotic woo was dead before it was even alive! As could have been seen by anybody with access to Google Scholar or similar.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88's usual insanity of deluded lies about quotes from ices and dust comet papers.
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 13 Feb 2020).
On the ion-neutral coupling in cometary comae and Ion velocity and electron temperature inside and around the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P do not say anything about Sol88's insane delusions about comets, e.g. physically impossible double layers.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Its authors claimed that comets were rock, despite us knowing for decades that the density was all wrong for rock. And the size of the crater at Tempel 1.

Sol88's cult's prophets demented fear of physics is probably matched by Sol88's fear of physics so Sol88 will never answer that question!
Deep within The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 13 Feb 2020). is 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
The answer I got is ~7 meters in diameter for an impact on Earth (rock) versus the observed ~150 meter wide crater on Tempel 1. Your response was

Quote:

I had to use one for the Moon, RC, because Earth burnt up the impactor I was trying to use. Either way, it's nonsense, and they know it is. I suspect that they've known for years, but it has become a faith based belief.
Velikovsky, or is it Von Daniken?
Nonsense either way. Need an IQ of a rabbit to follow that garbage.

Maybe I was using a simple calculator where earth has no atmosphere.

We should clarify for others (not Sol88) that Deep Impact caused outgassing of a total of 5 million kg (11 million lb) of water in July 2005. That is water ices melted by the impact itself (looks like 250,000 tonnes of water) plus extra outgassing from freshly exposed water ice grains sublimating over the next couple of weeks. Of course the usual level of outgassing continued for the rest of the comet.

ETA: That Sol88 is persisting in demented delusions is shown in the old posts e.g. 3rd July 2015
Rosetta’s Comet Sparkles with Ice, Blows Dust From Sinkholes
Exposed water ice detected on comet’s surface
Comet sinkholes generate jets
But Sol88 still spews out his demented dogma that there is no sublimation of ices on comets, almost 5 years later !