The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[tusenfem]

Just a head's up, a review paper on plasma physics around comets is now underway of being written, with basically all the known suspects that have appeared in this thread by name (including yours truly). I cannot say what the deadline is, probably by the end of the year. So maybe we can suspend this thread until the book "Comets III" comes out.

And now, back to vacation! Toodles!

[Sol88]

Awesome, can’t wait...

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Yep, as described by Nordheim;



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;



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.

So, gas still, for you jd116? More sun, more sublimation, more gas to stop the solar plasma? The Dirtysnowball.

Not

Plasma and electric fields? The ELECTRIC COMET.

Quote:

We study the evolution of a cometary ionosphere, using approximately two years of plasma measurements by the Mutual Impedance Probe on board the Rosetta spacecraft monitoring comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (67P) during August 2014–September 2016. The in situ plasma density measurements are utilized to estimate the altitude-integrated electron number density or cometary ionospheric total electron content (TEC) of 67P based on the assumption of radially expanding plasma. The TEC is shown to increase with decreasing heliocentric distance (rh) of the comet, reaching a peak value of ∼(133±84)×109 cm−2 averaged around perihelion (rh < 1.5 au). At large heliocentric distances (rh > 2.5 au), the TEC decreases by ∼2 orders of magnitude. For the same heliocentric distance, TEC values are found to be significantly larger during the post-perihelion periods compared to the pre-perihelion TEC values. This “ionospheric hysteresis effect” is more prominent in the southern hemisphere of the comet and at large heliocentric distances. A significant hemispheric asymmetry is observed during perihelion with approximately two times larger TEC values in the northern hemisphere compared to the southern hemisphere. The asymmetry is reversed and stronger during post-perihelion (rh > 1.5 au) periods with approximately three times larger TEC values in the southern hemisphere compared to the northern hemisphere. Hemispheric asymmetry was less prominent during the pre-perihelion intervals. The correlation of the cometary TEC with the incident solar ionizing fluxes is maximum around and slightly after perihelion (1.5 au < rh < 2 au), while it significantly decreases at larger heliocentric distances (rh > 2.5 au) where the photo-ionization contribution to the TEC variability decreases. The results are discussed based on cometary ionospheric production and loss processes.

Ionospheric total electron content of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko


Very interesting read in conjunction with the below papers, seems Rajkumar Hajra is thinking the electrons are creating the diamagnetic cavity. Not GAS, plasma. Remember we also have a shed load of charged dust in the equation as well.

Quote:

ABSTRACT The Rosetta Plasma Consortium MAGnetometer (RPC-MAG) has detected signatures of diamagnetic regions associated with comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko at distances from 30 to 400km at different heliocentric distances, which is larger than what has been predicted by numerical simulations of the cometary plasam environment. The physical mechanism behind these diamagnetic regions is still unknown. In this work, we use our newly developed multifluid plasma-neutral model to explore a possible physical mechanism that might create such regions. The model solves the governing multifluid magnetohydrodynamic equations for cometary and solar wind ions and electrons, and the Euler equations for the neutral gas fluid. We find that a local increase of electron thermal pressure is capable of generating many of the observed features of the diamagnetic regions observed by RPC-MAG. The simulation results show that a magnetic field-free region is formed and the recovery phase of the magnetic field magnitude is faster than the declining phase.

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

Quote:

Abstract
The Rosetta orbiter witnessed several hundred diamagnetic cavity crossings (unmagnetized regions) around comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko during its two year survey of the comet. The characteristics of the plasma environment inside these diamagnetic regions are studied using in situ measurements by the Rosetta Plasma Consortium instruments. Although the unmagnetized plasma density has been observed to exhibit little dynamics compared to the very dynamical magnetized cometary plasma, we detected several localized dynamic plasma structures inside those diamagnetic regions. These plasma structures are not related to the direct ionization of local cometary neutrals. The structures are found to be steepened, asymmetric plasma enhancements with typical rising-to-descending slope ratio of ∼2.8 (±1.9), skewness ∼0.43 (±0.36), mean duration of ∼2.7 (±0.9) min and relative density variation ΔN/N of ∼0.5 (±0.2), observed close to the electron exobase. Similar steepened plasma density enhancements were detected at the magnetized boundaries of the diamagnetic cavity as well as outside the diamagnetic region. The plausible scalelength and propagation direction of the structures are estimated from simple plasma dynamics considerations. It is suggested that they are large-scale unmagnetized plasma enhancements, transmitted from the very dynamical outer magnetized region to the inner magnetic field-free cavity region.

Dynamic unmagnetized plasma in the diamagnetic cavity around comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

So, I say you are misguided jonesdave116, in your belief in GAS as the main agent involved in diamagnetic cavity formation and maintenance at comets.

In the first papers there are a few assumptions that are retarding the understanding of the plasma dynamics because of the assumption of the mainstream Dirtysnowball model.

Electron impact ionisation baby!!! It’s were it’s at and the solar wind needs to get ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE NEAR the nucleus.

Electric fields are more than capable of accelerating/Trapping charged particles.

For instance,

Quote:

Abstract The cometary mission Rosetta has shown the presence of higher-than-expected suprathermal electron fluxes. In this study, using 3D fully kinetic electromagnetic simulations of the interaction of the solar wind with a comet, we constrain the kinetic mechanism that is responsible for the bulk electron energization that creates the suprathermal distribution from the warm background of solar wind electrons. We identify and characterize the magnetic fieldaligned ambipolar electric field that ensures quasi-neutrality and traps warm electrons. Solar wind electrons are accelerated to energies as high as 50–70 eV close to the comet nucleus without the need for wave–particle or turbulent heating mechanisms. We find that the accelerating potential controls the parallel electron temperature, total density, and (to a lesser degree) the perpendicular electron temperature and the magnetic field magnitude. Our self-consistent approach enables us to better understand the underlying plasma processes that govern the nearcomet plasma environment.

A fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

GAS

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So, gas still, for you jd116? More sun, more sublimation, more gas to stop the solar plasma? The Dirtysnowball.

Not

Plasma and electric fields? The ELECTRIC COMET.


Ionospheric total electron content of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko


Very interesting read in conjunction with the below papers, seems Rajkumar Hajra is thinking the electrons are creating the diamagnetic cavity. Not GAS, plasma. Remember we also have a shed load of charged dust in the equation as well.


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


Dynamic unmagnetized plasma in the diamagnetic cavity around comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

So, I say you are misguided jonesdave116, in your belief in GAS as the main agent involved in diamagnetic cavity formation and maintenance at comets.

In the first papers there are a few assumptions that are retarding the understanding of the plasma dynamics because of the assumption of the mainstream Dirtysnowball model.

Electron impact ionisation baby!!! It’s were it’s at and the solar wind needs to get ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE NEAR the nucleus.

Electric fields are more than capable of accelerating/Trapping charged particles.

For instance,



A fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

GAS

How many times do I have to explain this as if to a five year old, before it penetrates your thick skull? Yes, gas. And nothing else. As proven in the AMPTE experiments, which included only gas. Got it? No electric woo. No rock. Just gas. Or do you think they are lying?

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

So, I say you are misguided jonesdave116, in your belief in GAS as the main agent involved in diamagnetic cavity formation and maintenance at comets.

And I say that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. As usual. It is not MY belief. It is the observed facts, as attested by real scientists who understand the processes far better than wooists like you.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Very interesting read in conjunction with the below papers, seems Rajkumar Hajra is thinking the electrons are creating the diamagnetic cavity. Not GAS, plasma. Remember we also have a shed load of charged dust in the equation as well.

It'd be a far more interesting read for you if you had clue one what they were talking about. You haven't. It has already been explained to you, countless times, that at very active comets, such as Halley, the DC is likely formed due to ion-neutral friction. At less active comets, such as 67P, it is now believed to be electron-neutral friction.
Do you know where those ions and electrons that cause the friction are coming from? Neutral gas, sublimating from the comet. Solar wind ions and electrons are nowhere to be seen. And dust has no relevance at all. It hasn't had time to acquire a charge anyway, at that distance, and travels far more slowly than the gas.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Just a head's up, a review paper on plasma physics around comets is now underway of being written, with basically all the known suspects that have appeared in this thread by name (including yours truly). I cannot say what the deadline is, probably by the end of the year. So maybe we can suspend this thread until the book "Comets III" comes out.

And now, back to vacation! Toodles!

I’m particularly looking forward to the chapter, by Sol88 and Thornhill, which links the Grand Canyon with both 67/P and Ceres, using an innovative application of deep learning (a.k.a artificial intelligence) and advanced plasma physics.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Electric fields are more than capable of accelerating/Trapping charged particles.

And electric fields are only there due to outgassing. How many times do I need to explain this to you? How many years have you been peddling this crap on the internet? I'd say long enough to have completed three Bachelors degrees, and three PhDs. And yet the subject of plasma physics is still a totally foreign country to you. Unbelievable.

I had zero interest in plasma physics, until I started seeing posts on the Rosetta blog, and then on here, starting in 2015. Against my better judgement (because it is a very complicated, maths intense subject), I made an effort to try to understand the basics. That included reading tutorials, such as the one posted by Tusenfem, at Cosmoquest, as well as published papers. I have a number of books in pdf form, based on recommendations of people like Tim Thompson and Tusenfem. I have emailed authors for clarification on certain things. I have no intention of taking a degree in plasma physics. My knowledge of the subject is sadly lacking. However, in the five years that I have taken an interest in it, I would say that what little knowledge I have gained is exponentially greater than yours. How sad is that?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So, gas still, for you jd116? ...

Sol88's usual insane lies about posts and posters, etc.
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).

The physical fact is that ices on comets will sublimate and will produce gases. jonesdave116 cited papers about real comets where no outgassing = no coma and no papers about comet coma ! The comet coma will stop the solar wind from reaching the nucleus and electrostatically charging grains on the surface.
Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity
Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction with a Weakly Outgassing Comet
The birth and growth of a solar wind cavity around a comet – Rosetta observations

Sol88 persists with his insane lies about his demented dogma that comets are rocks blasted from planets. That is not textbook "Plasma and electric fields".

Sol88's usual insanity of citing ices and dust comet papers that have nothing to do with his demented dogma.

Sol88's usual insane lies about the papers he cites !
Ionospheric total electron content of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is on the electron content so of course talks about electrons!
A possible mechanism for the formation of magnetic field dropouts in the coma of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko is irrelevant to Sol88's demented dogma.
Dynamic unmagnetized plasma in the diamagnetic cavity around comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko is irrelevant to Sol88's demented dogma.

Sol88's insanity that plasma dynamics is assumed because of the supported by 100 years of data and textbook physics, mainstream comet model.

Sol88's repeats his demented insanity about A fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet only using electric fields. The paper uses textbook PIC computer simulation with the applicable physics, i.e. electric and magnetic fields for moving charges. Sol88 even quotes the paper doing that: "In this study, using 3D fully kinetic electromagnetic simulations of the interaction of the solar wind with a comet".

[Reality Check]

For other who are interested in the real world: A kinetic perspective of electron trapping near a weakly outgassing comet (PDF) gives details about what a fully kinetic (particle-in-cell) simulation involves.

Quote:

Kinetic Description of Plasma
Let there be a plasma with N_s species. These species can be electrons, protons, cations, anions or neutral particles. ...

Later in the paper are the textbook equations used which use E and B fields. To trap electrons there is a component of the electric field in the direction of the magnetic field.

By an author of Electron trapping in the coma of a weakly outgassing comet

[jonesdave116]

Let us try to explain this for the hard of thinking;

Back in about 1951, Biermann figures out that there must be a solar wind, based on the behaviour of comet tails. Good spot, Ludwig.
In 1957, Hannes Alfven, building on Biermann's observations and theories, comes up with the theory of field line draping at comets. Happy days.
Later still, various people theorise on the behaviour of the solar wind with the observed outgassed species of comets.
In 1984-5 the theory is tested with the AMPTE gas releases in the solar wind, monitored by attendant spacecraft. Theory holds up.
In 1986, the theory is tested by in-situ observation at a real comet. Halley. Theory holds up.
In 2006, a couple of uneducated, Velikovskian cretins, call all this into dispute. Based on being thick. And having zero knowledge of any relevant science. They have long since run away. What we are left with, is one lone loon who still believes this idiotic, impossible crap. Who continues to troll this forum. And is allowed to do so for unknown reasons. Make me a mod, problem will be fixed pronto.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

For other who are interested in the real world: A kinetic perspective of electron trapping near a weakly outgassing comet (PDF) gives details about what a fully kinetic (particle-in-cell) simulation involves.

Later in the paper are the textbook equations used which use E and B fields. To trap electrons there is a component of the electric field in the direction of the magnetic field.

By an author of Electron trapping in the coma of a weakly outgassing comet

Plasma Double Layer! Funny that...

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88's usual insane lies about my post on "A kinetic perspective of electron trapping near a weakly outgassing comet"

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Let us try to explain this for the hard of thinking;

Back in about 1951, Biermann figures out that there must be a solar wind, based on the behaviour of comet tails. Good spot, Ludwig.
In 1957, Hannes Alfven, building on Biermann's observations and theories, comes up with the theory of field line draping at comets. Happy days.
Later still, various people theorise on the behaviour of the solar wind with the observed outgassed species of comets.
In 1984-5 the theory is tested with the AMPTE gas releases in the solar wind, monitored by attendant spacecraft. Theory holds up.
In 1986, the theory is tested by in-situ observation at a real comet. Halley. Theory holds up.
In 2006, a couple of uneducated, Velikovskian cretins, call all this into dispute. Based on being thick. And having zero knowledge of any relevant science. They have long since run away. What we are left with, is one lone loon who still believes this idiotic, impossible crap. Who continues to troll this forum. And is allowed to do so for unknown reasons. Make me a mod, problem will be fixed pronto.

Quote:

This was initially proposed by Alfvén (1957), who discussed the formation of cometary tails and the associated magnetic field draping. In this model, the interplanetary magnetic field is frozen in the solar wind flow. The solar wind is slowed down by the incorporation of heavy cometary ions into the solar wind flow, the so-called mass-loading, in the close vicinity of the comet. It is still moving with undisturbed speed far away from the nucleus. Consequently, the magnetic field, which is frozen in the flow, is wrapped around the comet (Israelevich & Ershkovich 1994; Israelevich, Neubauer & Ershkovich 1994). In a simple way, this leads to a draped magnetic field at the comet and, in extension, the formation of a comet's tail.

Magnetic field pile-up and draping at intermediately active comets: results from comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko at 2.0 AU


Frozen in magnetic field?

What's this dynamic draping Volwerk's bangs on about?

Happy Days for Sure!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

How many times do I have to explain this as if to a five year old, before it penetrates your thick skull? Yes, gas. And nothing else. As proven in the AMPTE experiments, which included only gas. Got it? No electric woo. No rock. Just gas. Or do you think they are lying?

Oh, sorry

Quote:

Solar insolation leads to the sublimation of the cometary ices. This neutral gas escapes from the nucleus and forms an extended cometary neutral atmosphere, which acts as an obstacle for the impinging solar wind ions and electrons. By means of photoionization and charge-exchange, these neutral molecules are ionized and the interaction between the comet and the solar wind is enhanced. Within this interaction region, the solar wind flow is modified and various structures and boundaries form. The actual strength of the interaction depends on the gas production rate of the comet and properties of the impinging solar wind.

Magnetic field pile-up and draping at intermediately active comets: results from comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko at 2.0 AU


Jonesdave116 ONLY method!



Now I can see why the poor sod is so disillusioned!

Pity, they did not mention the main ionisation source, electron impact ionisation!

Still, to be expected from the dirtysnowballers!

[Sol88]

Quote:

4. Results Both our model and the observations show increased sputter-ing on the winter hemisphere, which is considerably less active for H2O than in the summer hemisphere. The ratio of sput-tered elements from both hemispheres is roughly one-third. We herefore present our results when using all available data andwhen considering only measurements obtained above and below0◦latitude, the latter representing the winter hemisphere with increased sputtering and therefore better signal-to-noise ratio.Table 2 presents the results side-by-side and shows that they are the same to within a few percent

Ionospheric plasma of comet 67P probed by Rosetta at 3 au from the Sun

Quote:

Abstract

We propose to identify the main sources of ionization of the plasma in the coma of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko at different locations in the coma and to quantify their relative importance, for the first time, for close cometocentric distances (<20 km) and large heliocentric distances (>3 au). The ionospheric model proposed is used as an organizing element of a multi-instrument data set from the Rosetta Plasma Consortium (RPC) plasma and particle sensors, from the Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and Neutral Analysis and from the Microwave Instrument on the Rosetta Orbiter, all on board the ESA/Rosetta spacecraft. The calculated ionospheric density driven by Rosetta observations is compared to the RPC-Langmuir Probe and RPC-Mutual Impedance Probe electron density. The main cometary plasma sources identified are photoionization of solar extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation and energetic electron-impact ionization. Over the northern, summer hemisphere, the solar EUV radiation is found to drive the electron density – with occasional periods when energetic electrons are also significant. Over the southern, winter hemisphere, photoionization alone cannot explain the observed electron density, which reaches sometimes higher values than over the summer hemisphere; electron-impact ionization has to be taken into account. The bulk of the electron population is warm with temperature of the order of 7–10 eV. For increased neutral densities, we show evidence of partial energy degradation of the hot electron energy tail and cooling of the full electron population.

Solar wind sputtering of dust on the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko


but

Jonesdave116 is still stuck in the past...

Quote:

Solar insolation leads to the sublimation of the cometary ices. This neutral gas escapes from the nucleus and forms an extended cometary neutral atmosphere, which acts as an obstacle for the impinging solar wind ions and electrons. By means of photoionization and charge-exchange, these neutral molecules are ionized and the interaction between the comet and the solar wind is enhanced. Within this interaction region, the solar wind flow is modified and various structures and boundaries form. The actual strength of the interaction depends on the gas production rate of the comet and properties of the impinging solar wind.

Magnetic field pile-up and draping at intermediately active comets: results from comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko at 2.0 AU

So we already had a coma at 3AU, a surprise to mainstream scientist as ice does not sublimate at this distance.

Quote:

Despite low outgassing activity at large heliocentric distances (>2.5 au), the plasma close to comet 67P (<30 km) is primarily of cometary origin with the composition dominated by water ions (Fuselier et al. 2015; Nilsson et al. 2015a,b; Behar et al. 2016).

So, poor jd116 beloved "outgassing" from Solar insolation is not necessary to establish a cometary atmosphere!

but must be so according to the dirtysnowball!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

I’m particularly looking forward to the chapter, by Sol88 and Thornhill, which links the Grand Canyon with both 67/P and Ceres, using an innovative application of deep learning (a.k.a artificial intelligence) and advanced plasma physics.

It would be right next to the section on Nebular hypothesis

Quote:

The lifespan of the accretion disks is about 10 million years.[15] By the time the star reaches the classical T-Tauri stage, the disk becomes thinner and cools.[43] Less volatile materials start to condense close to its center, forming 0.1–1 μm dust grains that contain crystalline silicates.[17] The transport of the material from the outer disk can mix these newly formed dust grains with primordial ones, which contain organic matter and other volatiles. This mixing can explain some peculiarities in the composition of Solar System bodies such as the presence of interstellar grains in the primitive meteorites and refractory inclusions in comets.[4

Quote:

Because planetesimals are so numerous, and spread throughout the protoplanetary disk, some survive the formation of a planetary system.

Asteroids are understood to be left-over planetesimals, gradually grinding each other down into smaller and smaller bits, while comets are typically planetesimals from the farther reaches of a planetary system. Meteorites are samples of planetesimals that reach a planetary surface, and provide a great deal of information about the formation of the Solar System.

Primitive-type meteorites are chunks of shattered low-mass planetesimals, where no thermal differentiation took place, while processed-type meteorites are chunks from shattered massive planetesimals.[60] Interstellar objects could have been captured, and become part of the young Solar system.[61]

but and from the very start...

Quote:

The nebular hypothesis is the leading theory, amongst scientists, which states that the planets were formed out of a cloud of material associated with a youthful sun, which was slowly rotating.

Later in 1900, Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin and Forest Ray Moulton considered that a wandering star approached the sun. As a result, a cigar-shaped extension of material was separated from the solar surface.

As the passing star moved away, the material separated from the solar surface continued to revolve around the sun and it slowly condensed into planets. They considered that sun was surrounded by a solar nebula containing mostly the hydrogen and helium along with what may be termed as dust.

The friction and collision of particles led to formation of a disk-shaped cloud and the planets were formed through the process of accretion. It is the most widely accepted model in the field of cosmogony to explain the formation and evolution of the Solar System (as well as other planetary systems).

Was Saturn the Sun?

Quote:

Was Saturn the Sun in ancient times? Or seen in history and mythology skies as a Sun like object?

So....


Along with the Grand tack and Nice models...

Be quite the read!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

And electric fields are only there due to outgassing. How many times do I need to explain this to you? How many years have you been peddling this crap on the internet? I'd say long enough to have completed three Bachelors degrees, and three PhDs. And yet the subject of plasma physics is still a totally foreign country to you. Unbelievable.

I had zero interest in plasma physics, until I started seeing posts on the Rosetta blog, and then on here, starting in 2015. Against my better judgement (because it is a very complicated, maths intense subject), I made an effort to try to understand the basics. That included reading tutorials, such as the one posted by Tusenfem, at Cosmoquest, as well as published papers. I have a number of books in pdf form, based on recommendations of people like Tim Thompson and Tusenfem. I have emailed authors for clarification on certain things. I have no intention of taking a degree in plasma physics. My knowledge of the subject is sadly lacking. However, in the five years that I have taken an interest in it, I would say that what little knowledge I have gained is exponentially greater than yours. How sad is that?

because it is a very complicated, maths intense subject, BOOYA!

but

And electric fields are only there due to outgassing. No they are there because the comets presents itself as a supersonic obstacle to the solar plasma stream. This causes the violation of the solar wind quasi-neutrality WAAAAY before any heat can get anywhere near the buried and hidden ICE!!

Hello electric fields!

[Sol88]

Quote:

The atmosphere of a comet (coma) is formed by its outgassing and interaction
with solar wind. The innermost region of the comet is the nucleus from
which sublimation of particles is happening.

The neutral gas molecules have a radial profile 1=r2 [32]. In the innermost regions of the coma where neutral gas density is the largest, there are collisions between cometary ions and neutral particles which change the velocity of cometary ions.

For the plasma these collisions act as an ion-neutral friction force. Above the nucleus is a “recombination" region where ionization and recombination of the sublimated
particles happen [33].

This region exists inside the diamagnetic cavity [34]which is characterized by a decrease in magnetic field intensity to zero, and with plasma having a radial velocity inside the cavity

A kinetic perspective of electron trapping near a weakly outgassing comet

Just on the ion-neutral friction force also called the ion-neutral coupling in cometary comae,

Quote:

ABSTRACT
In a cometary coma, the ion-neutral decoupling distance, sometimes referred to as the ion exobase or collisionopause, can be defined as the cometocentric distance, rin, where ions, initially moving with the neutral outgassing speed, have a probability of 1/e of not colliding with neutrals on their subsequent journey radially outwards. We present an analytical model for calculating this decoupling distance in the presence of a static radial electric field.

We show that for a logarithmically decaying potential, the value of rin can even decrease to ∼15 per cent of its field-free case value. Moreover, already at this distance, the effective ion speed can be expected to markedly exceed the neutral expansion velocity. These analytical results are in line with previous numerical calculations, adapting similar but not identical field profiles.

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.

So not sure whats going on here or who has their wires crossed!

also quite interesting was Above the nucleus is a “recombination" region where ionization and recombination of the sublimated particles happen [33].

Mmmmm... sounds very Dr Anariba to me!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Magnetic field pile-up and draping at intermediately active comets: results from comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko at 2.0 AU


Frozen in magnetic field?

What's this dynamic draping Volwerk's bangs on about?

Happy Days for Sure!

Sorry? What idiocy are you on about now? The field piles up and drapes around the comet. As predicted. As observed. Have you got anything of any relevance to say? No, would be the answer to that. In which case, why not keep quiet?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Oh, sorry

Magnetic field pile-up and draping at intermediately active comets: results from comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko at 2.0 AU


Jonesdave116 ONLY method!



Now I can see why the poor sod is so disillusioned!

Pity, they did not mention the main ionisation source, electron impact ionisation!

Still, to be expected from the dirtysnowballers!

You don't get it do you? No outgassing, no cavity. Get that through your thick skull. And it doesn't matter where the ionisation is coming from. It is ionisation of cometary neutrals from outgassing. Understand? The outgassing that your clueless woo says isn't happening. You lost. You are clueless. Go away and waste somebody else's time. Stop spamming your crap on here.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ionospheric plasma of comet 67P probed by Rosetta at 3 au from the Sun

Solar wind sputtering of dust on the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko


but

Jonesdave116 is still stuck in the past... Magnetic field pile-up and draping at intermediately active comets: results from comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko at 2.0 AU

So we already had a coma at 3AU, a surprise to mainstream scientist as ice does not sublimate at this distance.

So, poor jd116 beloved "outgassing" from Solar insolation is not necessary to establish a cometary atmosphere!

but must be so according to the dirtysnowball!

Not just stupid, but a liar to boot. Yes, a coma is expected at 3 AU. So you can quit with that lie. And solar insolation is required. There is no other possible mechanism. Sputtering, for the hard of thinking, produces a tiny percentage of the coma, and only when the solar wind has access to the surface. Read the paper. What are the figures? How much water compared to sputtered species? This is what happens when you do not understand a basic paper, and pretend to have knowledge of a subject in which you are demonstrably clueless.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

because it is a very complicated, maths intense subject, BOOYA!

but

And electric fields are only there due to outgassing. No they are there because the comets presents itself as a supersonic obstacle to the solar plasma stream. This causes the violation of the solar wind quasi-neutrality WAAAAY before any heat can get anywhere near the buried and hidden ICE!!

Hello electric fields!

Is another lie. Do you ever get sick of the amount of lies you tell to keep your scientifically impossible crap alive in your mind?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

A kinetic perspective of electron trapping near a weakly outgassing comet

Just on the ion-neutral friction force also called the ion-neutral coupling in cometary comae,





So not sure whats going on here or who has their wires crossed!

also quite interesting was Above the nucleus is a “recombination" region where ionization and recombination of the sublimated particles happen [33].

Mmmmm... sounds very Dr Anariba to me!

No, it sounds nothing like the idiotic woo of the clown Anariba.
Get this through your thick skull - a diamagnetic cavity forms without the need for a comet. Understand? All you need is gas. As proven with AMPTE. And you keep running away from that, and continue to post crap due to your ignorance of all things scientific. When you run out of crap to post, you just lie.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

A spate of his usual insane lies from 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 Feb 2020).

Magnetic field pile-up and draping at intermediately active comets: results from comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko at 2.0 AU is not about the frozen in magnetic field approximation. All it does is mention Alfvén's use of it in 1957. The solar magnetic field becomes draped around 67P in a dynamic process- thus dynamic draping !

Next post: Sol88's usual insane lies and insults.
The above paper is not on the diamagnetic cavity which was the subject of jonesdave116's post. The DC is just one of Sol88's demented obsessions.

Next post: Sol88's usual insane lies.
Ionospheric plasma of comet 67P probed by Rosetta at 3 au from the Sun
Solar wind sputtering of dust on the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Magnetic field pile-up and draping at intermediately active comets: results from comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko at 2.0 AU
The first paper is about 67P at 3 AU when there was no or little coma. The third paper is about 67P at 2 AU when there was an established coma. The frost line for water ice is ~3 AU.

Next post: Sol88's usual insanity of emphasizing how utterly deluded he is with "Was Saturn the Sun?
That is an insane delusion from his demented cult's prophet David Talbot. Sol88 and Talbot believe that Earth once orbited Saturn because they fantasize and lie about myths.

Next post: Sol88's usual insanity.

Next post: Sol88's usual insanity.
Real plasma is not Dr Anariba's ignorant fantasies to anyone with a brain or who can read. "ionization and recombination of the sublimated particles happen" is simply particles losing and gaining electrons. That is not chemistry .
Sol88 quotes "sublimated particles" that in his demented mind do not exist!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

No, it sounds nothing like the idiotic woo of the clown Anariba.
Get this through your thick skull - a diamagnetic cavity forms without the need for a comet. Understand? All you need is gas. As proven with AMPTE. And you keep running away from that, and continue to post crap due to your ignorance of all things scientific. When you run out of crap to post, you just lie.

Gas...

No, plasma.

YOU can get this PLASMA from a GAS or a SOLID...though.

Even the AMPTE showed this clearly, dude.

It’s the plasma and the electric field from the solid nucleus that had already formed, quintessentially a coma and along Deca’s description of said kinetic plasma, this excludes the solar plasma forming a diamagnetic cavity.

Or just a charge sheath really, a cavity in the surrounding plasma by a charged object, nothing special really. Even if you can’t do the maths jonesdave116.

[Sol88]

What you really seem to be missing is the IMPORTANCE of ENERGETIC ELECTRON IMPACT IONISATION.

Photoionisation, yawn, sunlight lots of UV where I live.
Charge exchange, double big yawn, you can only proceed at rate X.

Energetic electron impact ionisation... hello plasma sheaths and double layers!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Gas...

No, plasma.

YOU can get this PLASMA from a GAS or a SOLID...though.

Even the AMPTE showed this clearly, dude.

It’s the plasma and the electric field from the solid nucleus that had already formed, quintessentially a coma and along Deca’s description of said kinetic plasma, this excludes the solar plasma forming a diamagnetic cavity.

Or just a charge sheath really, a cavity in the surrounding plasma by a charged object, nothing special really. Even if you can’t do the maths jonesdave116.

AMPTE showed no such thing. Will you quit lying? There was no solid surface. Just gas. Understand? 2 kg of Ba or Li. No comet. Zilch, just gas. Get it through your skull. Read the papers, and stop making crap up. There is no electric field from the nucleus. As shown with AMPTE. No solid surface, no electric fields. Just gas. What is it about those two words are you failing to understand? DC sans comet.No electric woo. No rock. Explain it. You can't. It is beyond your intellectual capabilities. So you gish gallop and lie.

And I didn't say I couldn't do the maths. I said I was reluctant to get into it too heavily, as there was a lot of maths involved. I wasn't keen on putting in the necessary time for a subject in which I only had a passing interest, and no intention of getting a qualification in.

However, one thing is for sure - with your level of mathematical incompetence, you haven't got a chance of understanding the subject. Plasma physics is probably one of the most maths intense subjects out there. You can do all the experiments you like, but you need to describe what is happening in the language of physics. And that is maths. Which is why nobody in your Velikovskian, anti-science cult has got a scooby about the subject.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

What you really seem to be missing is the IMPORTANCE of ENERGETIC ELECTRON IMPACT IONISATION.

Photoionisation, yawn, sunlight lots of UV where I live.
Charge exchange, double big yawn, you can only proceed at rate X.

Energetic electron impact ionisation... hello plasma sheaths and double layers!

More idiocy. The gas at comets, and in the AMPTE experiments, was ionised predominantly by photo-ionisation. Any electrons involved are of cometary origin. Ergo, no cometary gas, no cometary electrons, no electron ionisation. See what I mean about you not having a clue about the subject?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

More idiocy. The gas at comets, and in the AMPTE experiments, was ionised predominantly by photo-ionisation. Any electrons involved are of cometary origin. Ergo, no cometary gas, no cometary electrons, no electron ionisation. See what I mean about you not having a clue about the subject?

Is the dust negatively charged? Where are the electrons from the sputttered refractories?

No photoionisation or sublimation neeeded!

Happens at asteroids too. Asteroids are just “low powered” comets. A dead comet has reached charge equilibrium with the surrounding plasma most usually by obtaining a more circular orbit within the radial electric field of Sol. These we call asteroids I believe, both the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE and the MAINSTREAM.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Is the dust negatively charged? Where are the electrons from the sputttered refractories?

No photoionisation or sublimation neeeded!

Happens at asteroids too. Asteroids are just “low powered” comets. A dead comet has reached charge equilibrium with the surrounding plasma most usually by obtaining a more circular orbit within the radial electric field of Sol. These we call asteroids I believe, both the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE and the MAINSTREAM.

Gibberish. Dust has nothing to do with the DC. Where was the dust in the AMPTE experiments? And you are talking crap about non-existent radial fields again. Indagator's question re asteroids on cometary orbits remains unanswered. You keep running away from it. Two bodies of similar size, on similar orbits; one outgasses and is a comet. The other doesn't, because it is rock. And therefore not a comet. All your rubbish was stillborn. The evidence that showed it to be trivially wrong was already in the literature 20 years before Wallace & Gromit wrote their woo.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

No photoionisation or sublimation neeeded!

What an idiotic comment! This is what I mean about your complete lack of understanding of the subject. Where TF do you think the electrons involved in electron impact ionisation come from? Photo-ionisation! Duh! Of neutral gas. Double duh!

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Where are the electrons from the sputttered refractories?

The majority of the sputtered species are neutral. Those that aren't balance each other. You know; + and - = 0. And the amount of sputtered species is a tiny percentage of the overall coma. Outnumbered something like 1 million to 1 by water. And only happens when the solar wind has access to the nucleus. As I have already explained.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Yet more insanity from Sol88.
jonesdave116 wrote Get this through your thick skull - a diamagnetic cavity forms without the need for a comet. Understand? All you need is gas. ... with the important part emphasized.
Sol88 has the demented delusion that a diamagnetic cavity requires comet nucleus with his insane dogma of being rock, etc.. The AMPTE showed that a comet nucleus is not needed: In 1984-5 the theory is tested with the AMPTE gas releases in the solar wind, monitored by attendant spacecraft. Theory holds up. with no comet nucleus !
For real comets, sublimating ices outgas and create a coma. The interaction of the coma with the solar wind creates a diamagnetic cavity, similarly to the AMPTE experiment.
Sol88 emphasizes how deluded he is by obsessing with the word "gas" when in astronomy, gas is the general term for any gas or plasma in space.

Next post: "ENERGETIC ELECTRON IMPACT IONISATION" insanity.
Sol88 shows how deluded he is because we have not ignored textbook physics unlike him. The solar wind contains energetic electrons. The interaction of the solar wind with a comet coma will cause changing electromagnetic fields which will accelerate electrons - more energetic electrons! Energetic electrons hitting atoms and ions can ionize them - well Duh !
Sol88 shows how deluded he is by still being demented about physically impossible at comet double layers.

Next post: Sol88 shows how deluded he is:

1. Returns to his insane negatively charged dust question that has been answered dozens of times over the last couple of years.
   They have been detected and are irrelevant to Sol88's demented dogma.
2. An insane "No photoionisation or sublimation neeeded" lie.
   He has been citing papers stating that sublimation and photoionization are needed for diamagnetic cavities at comets for maybe years.
   Sol88's insane delusions do nothing at comets.
3. Insane delusions about asteroids.
   Active asteroids being his comets shows how demented he is since 100,000s of asteroids would have to be comets. And that was last checked 5 years ago - the number and thus depth of this insanity has probably grown !
4. "A dead comet" has a more circular orbit insanity.
   When comets stop outgassing by running out of ices, what remains stays in the same orbit. That is a reason why there are meteor showers. The main source for meteor showers is the dust left as comets traverse close to the same orbit year after year. We can even see the dust trail they leave: "Comet Encke's meteoroid trail is the diagonal red glow". The dust trails themselves are quite dynamic.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

What an idiotic comment! This is what I mean about your complete lack of understanding of the subject. Where TF do you think the electrons involved in electron impact ionisation come from? Photo-ionisation! Duh! Of neutral gas. Double duh!

Jeeebus H Christus, ya drongo!

Quote:

Alternatively, it is also conceivable that these small grains are present in surface and subsurface layers.

We have indeed some evidence for the presence of charged nanograins in the coma of 67P (Burch et al. 2015).

Comet 67P outbursts and quiescent coma at 1.3 AU from the Sun: dust properties from Rosetta/VIRTIS-H observations

Indeed!

Quote:

4.5 Charged Dust

The amount of electric charge collected by fluffy and sub-μ m dust particles affects their motion in comae and tails and their lifetime against electrostatic fragmentation. The Rosetta mission provided the first direct evidence for the presence of electrically charged dust particles in a coma.

Quote:

Based on our experience with mesospheric dust charging at Earth it can be assumed that most of the extra electrons are deep inside the dust particle and they can electrostatically disrupt fluffy, highly friable dust particles (Hill and Mendis 1981).

Great stuff!

So absoluty no question we are talking dusty plasma INSIDE the diamagnetic cavity, NO GAS NEEDED!!!!

Quote:

We conclude that an important result of the comet‐SW interaction is the bathing of the comet by positive and negative nanograins (probably clusters of water molecules as concluded by Gombosi et al., 2015).

These nanograins originate at the comet nucleus and are picked up by the nearby SW and returned to the comet's vicinity with greatly increased energies. They then are accelerated further, creating a cloud of nanograins flowing with the SW toward the outer heliosphere.

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


Photo-ionisation

greatly increased energies = Impact ionisation


Since jd116 is got his knickers all bunched up...

Quote:

4 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE EVENTS – THE EXTENT OF THE CAVITY

The intermittent nature of the cavity observations together with
the unexpectedly high distance from the nucleus, at which these
observations were performed, raise the question whether there is
a global cavity of several hundred km radius around the nucleus
or local enhancements of the density and velocity of the neutral
atmosphere and/or the dust cloud (e.g. jets) cause small localized
cavities.

Either global or local, it is a primary goal of the Rosetta
mission to determine the extent and shape of the diamagnetic cavity.
The multitude of cavity encounters in the summer of 2015 allows
us to study and at least partially answer these questions.

Charged particle signatures of the diamagnetic cavity of comet
67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko


So, gas????

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88's demented insults and insane lies about posts and posters.
jonesdave116 wrote What an idiotic comment! This is what I mean about your complete lack of understanding of the subject. Where TF do you think the electrons involved in electron impact ionisation come from? Photo-ionisation! Duh! Of neutral gas. Double duh!.
This is about electron impact ionization in the coma many kilometers from a comet nucleus. The electrons come from photoionization of neutral gas emitted by sublimating ices. This is simply that photons absorbed by electrons in atoms can allow then to escape. Not mentions is neutral dust grains which can also lose electrons to become positively charged (Sol88 has a demented obsession with negatively charged dust grains).

Sol88 shows how deluded Sol88 is with a quote about surface and subsurface grains and the dust grains we have detected in comets coma from Comet 67P outbursts and quiescent coma at 1.3 AU from the Sun: dust properties from Rosetta/VIRTIS-H observations
Simultaneous Observation of Negatively and Positively Charged Nanograins at Comet 67P/Churyumov‐Gerasimenko
Those "Positively Charged Nanograins" are a source of the electrons in electron impact ionization! On the other hand, the "Negatively Charged Nanograins" are sinks of the electrons in electron impact ionization. With no other information, a rational assumption is that they cancel out and that the majority of electrons in electron impact ionization come from photoionization of neutral gas.

Sol88 goes crazy as usual about parses in Charged particle signatures of the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.

[Sol88]

Just for a change of pace;

Special Feature: THE SAFIRE SUN

Quote:

THE SAFIRE PROJECT has become a commercial venture. Based on the discoveries of the last six years, the SAFIRE team is currently developing a nuclear-plasma reactor which will have the capacity to both generate electrical power and to remediate radioactive waste.

Sign me up!

on a side note, i wonder if the double layer was exposed to the solar wind, do ya reckon that would exclude the solar winds magnetic field?

Or, does it have to be Gas, jonesdave116?

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Sign me up!

Please do! And keep us informed how your investment goes.

("There is one born every minute")

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Just for a change of pace;

Special Feature: THE SAFIRE SUN



Sign me up!

on a side note, i wonder if the double layer was exposed to the solar wind, do ya reckon that would exclude the solar winds magnetic field?

Or, does it have to be Gas, jonesdave116?

Stop being idiotic. There are no double layers. And it has already been proven, 35 years ago, that gas is all you need. Remember AMPTE? How many times do you need it explained to you before it penetrates whatever counts for your brain?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Jeeebus H Christus, ya drongo!

Comet 67P outbursts and quiescent coma at 1.3 AU from the Sun: dust properties from Rosetta/VIRTIS-H observations

Indeed!





Great stuff!

So absoluty no question we are talking dusty plasma INSIDE the diamagnetic cavity, NO GAS NEEDED!!!!

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


Photo-ionisation

greatly increased energies = Impact ionisation


Since jd116 is got his knickers all bunched up... Charged particle signatures of the diamagnetic cavity of comet
67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko


So, gas????

And another pile of complete gibberish. Yes, gas. Understand? Dust does nothing. Where is the dust in the AMPTE experiments? Answer the question, or shut up. I am sick of your idiocy and blatant trolling. Get a life. Get an education.