The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Just for a change of pace;

Special Feature: THE SAFIRE SUN



Sign me up!

And it is precisely people like you that they will be targeting. Gullible and scientifically illiterate.

[Sol88]

From Dynamics of the AMPTE artificial comet

Quote:

penetrated into an initially diamagnetic barium plasma cloud

Quote:

Magnetic Cavity

The cause of cavity formation is the high initial pressure of the expanding plasma cloud.

My bold.

knock 'ya self out champ!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

From Dynamics of the AMPTE artificial comet





My bold.

knock 'ya self out champ!

What are you talking about now? Yes, I have told you all this before. No comet, no electric woo, just the barium. Which starts off as neutral gas. Some of it gets ionised by photo-ionisation. The ions, or more likely electrons, then interact with the neutrals to produce the friction that creates the cavity. All of this with no rock and no electric woo.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Sol88

From Dynamics of the AMPTE artificial comet





My bold.

knock 'ya self out champ!

I too am surprised that you quote this bit of evidence as if it supported your position.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by steenkh

I too am surprised that you quote this bit of evidence as if it supported your position.

That it was plasma and not gas?

Quote:

Quote:

penetrated into an initially diamagnetic barium plasma cloud

Quote:

Magnetic Cavity

The cause of cavity formation is the high initial pressure of the expanding plasma cloud.

You’re a clever cookie.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

That it was plasma and not gas?

You’re a clever cookie.

Of course it's sodding plasma! How the hell are you going to get ion-neutral/ electron-neutral friction without ions and electrons? SMH!
However, the gas starts of as neutral. It is not even close to being fully ionised when the DC forms. I don't know the figures for AMPTE off the top of my head, but you will find that the ratio of neutrals to ions in a cometary cavity is something between 10⁵ and 10⁶:1.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

SAFIRE, etc. insanity 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).
Sol88 is deluded enough to believe in a propaganda video from a demented cult (that is the ThunderboltsProject channel). Sol88 ignorantly believes in the scam from his cult that "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." What they have is a plasma experiment running on external power and does not have anything but chemical reactions.

Sol88 is still insane enough to believe that any star can be externally powered.
It is Astronomy 101 that stable stars are a balance between gravity and pressure and so textbook physics requires an internal heat source. We have measured the neutrinos from that internal source. Lately the SAFIRE project has gone completely insane by throwing away even a veneer of being science and become yet another deluded "free energy" scam.

Sol88 is still demented about physically impossible double layers at comets.

Next post:
Sol88 shows how deluded he is by quoting from "Dynamics of the AMPTE artificial comet" which created a diamagnetic cavity without any comet nucleus. Sol88's insanity includes that a diamagnetic cavity needs his demented "comets are a rocks" nucleus.
Sol88 is still insanely obsessed by the word "gas" used by jonesdave116 which in astronomy generally includes plasma. The point of the AMPTE experiment is still that there was a diamagnetic cavity and no comet nucleus thus showing how deluded Sol88 is about a diamagnetic cavity needing his demented "comets is a rock" nucleus.

Next post: Sol88 is still insanely obsessed by the word "gas" used by jonesdave116 which in astronomy generally includes plasma. The point of the AMPTE experiment is still that there was a diamagnetic cavity and no comet nucleus thus showing how deluded Sol88 is about a diamagnetic cavity needing his demented "comets are a rocks" nucleus.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Of course it's sodding plasma! How the hell are you going to get ion-neutral/ electron-neutral friction without ions and electrons? SMH!
However, the gas starts of as neutral. It is not even close to being fully ionised when the DC forms. I don't know the figures for AMPTE off the top of my head, but you will find that the ratio of neutrals to ions in a cometary cavity is something between 10⁵ and 10⁶:1.

Of course it's sodding plasma!

So, we can agree? It’s plasma not gas, jonesdave116?

Bloody long way round, mate, to the same spot, so of course it's sodding plasma!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Of course it's sodding plasma! How the hell are you going to get ion-neutral/ electron-neutral friction without ions and electrons? SMH!
However, the gas starts of as neutral. It is not even close to being fully ionised when the DC forms. I don't know the figures for AMPTE off the top of my head, but you will find that the ratio of neutrals to ions in a cometary cavity is something between 10⁵ and 10⁶:1.

So, what is the part that is forming when the DC forms?

I.e there is the space craft the barium cloud and the forming DC, what’s forming jonesdave116?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 is still insanely obsessed by the word "gas" used by jonesdave116 which in astronomy generally includes plasma. The point of the AMPTE experiment is still that there was a diamagnetic cavity and no comet nucleus thus showing how deluded Sol88 is about a diamagnetic cavity needing his demented "comets are a rocks" nucleus

Next post: Sol88's usual demented questions to derail from his electric comet insanity.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Of course it's sodding plasma!

So, we can agree? It’s plasma not gas, jonesdave116?

Bloody long way round, mate, to the same spot, so of course it's sodding plasma!

Where TF do you think that ion-neutral friction is coming from? Solar wind ions? That are getting nowhere near the comet? Where do you think the neutrals are coming from?
Seriously, give your head a wobble, yes?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So, what is the part that is forming when the DC forms?

I.e there is the space craft the barium cloud and the forming DC, what’s forming jonesdave116?

Let me see if I can explain this in a manner that a ten year old would understand; barium gas (neutral) is released into the solar wind. Big yellow thing in sky causes some of it to become ionised. Either the ions or, more likely in that case, electrons from said ionisation, cause friction with the still remaining neutrals. Diamagnetic cavity forms.
There is a tonne of stuff in the literature about this. About the experiments themselves, and about the theory of DCs. Try Axford from ~ 1986, iirc.
It was all known long before clowns like Thornhill invented their already disprovable woo, in 2006.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Sol88

That it was plasma and not gas?

Yes. It was evident from the beginning that the gas became plasma. Otherwise it would not have been visible. The mere mentioning of the word plasma is not enough to support your ideas. Could you elaborate on why you think that this supports you rather than science?

[jonesdave116]

Here is a passage from a paper from 1989, which was certainly not the first of its kind. Much of it could have been found by people in 2006, before putting pen to paper and compiling a scientifically impossible 'model';

Quote:

The existence of relatively cold "ionospheric" plasma in the inner coma of an active comet had been postulated for many years (see the reviews by Mendis et al. [1985], Ip and Axford [1982], and Cravens [1989a, b]), but the first direct evidence was obtained by the Giotto, VEGA, and ICE spacecraft during their recent encounters with comets Halley and Giacobini Zinner. The plasma in the inner coma of comet Halley (within the "cometopause" which is located at a cometocentric distance of r = 10⁵km) was observed to be almost stationary and entirely of cometary origin [Gringauz et al., 1986a,b; Balsiger et al., 1986]. The Giotto spacecraft encountered a diamagnetic cavity deep within this stagnation region [Neubauer et al., 1986].

Bolding by me.

A Magnetohydrodynamical Model of The Inner Coma of Comet Halley
Cravens, T. E. (1989)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....A094iA11p15025

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by steenkh

Yes. It was evident from the beginning that the gas became plasma. Otherwise it would not have been visible. The mere mentioning of the word plasma is not enough to support your ideas. Could you elaborate on why you think that this supports you rather than science?

Gas/plasma all the same really, ay?

Yeah, it kinda stuck out like dogs balls but jonesdave116 was adamant that it was Gas...

Now, back to the old chestnut what’s the difference between gas and plasma?

Or better put in the context of the diamagnetic cavity with would stop the solar wind, gas or plasma?

Jonesdave116 alluded to up the page a bit, what is forming at the interface between the gas and the gas being ionised to become a plasma...

Supports me, in that it’s the electric field not jonesdave116’s bloody friction forming the cavity.

E.g

Quote:

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

AFully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Because in the AMPTE experiment it says, electric field too.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Usual insane lies about posts and posters 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).
jonesdave116 wrote the physical fact that the neutral gas from sublimating ices at comets will become plasma because spme asoms and molecules will ionize from UV light.
The issue is not the words gas of plasma - it is the fact that AMTE experiments made a diamagnetic cavity without a comet nucleus, especially Sol88 demented comets nucleus is a rock insanity.

Sol88's usual demented questions emphasize his insanity about comets and the Sun yet again.
The AMTE experiments used plasmas - there will be magnetic and electric fields that have nothing to do with Sol88's demented dogma.
Comet coma are plasma - there will be magnetic and electric fields that have nothing to do with Sol88's demented dogma.
Sol88 shows his insanity with an insane question implying a delusion that the diamagnetic cavity is essential to the gas & plasma & magnetic fields & electric fields & maybe even dust that stops the solar wind from reaching the comet nucleus. It is the other way around. A comet coma forms and gets thick/ionized enough to guide the solar wind around the nucleus. That allows a diamagnetic cavity to form.

Sol88's demented lie about A fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Originally Posted by Reality Check;13014737Sol88's repeats his demented insanity about [B

A fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet[/b] 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".

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Gas/plasma all the same really, ay?

Yeah, it kinda stuck out like dogs balls but jonesdave116 was adamant that it was Gas...

Now, back to the old chestnut what’s the difference between gas and plasma?

Or better put in the context of the diamagnetic cavity with would stop the solar wind, gas or plasma?

Jonesdave116 alluded to up the page a bit, what is forming at the interface between the gas and the gas being ionised to become a plasma...

Supports me, in that it’s the electric field not jonesdave116’s bloody friction forming the cavity.

E.g AFully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Because in the AMPTE experiment it says, electric field too.

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

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

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

There is a clue in the title of the paper that even the hardest of thinking should be able to pick up on. This is for a weakly outgassing comet. In other words, 67P at 3 AU. Not for 67P at 1.24 AU. And not for Halley at the time it was encountered. A further clue is in the passage quoted; solar wind electrons. They are nowhere to be seen where the DC forms. The field is due to the interaction of the solar wind ions and electrons, with the cometary ions and electrons. The need to satisfy quasi-neutrality necessitates the field forming. That is not the case in the region of the DC. As mentioned, the solar wind is a long way away.
A little bit of joined up thinking would prevent you continually putting your foot in your mouth. However, one can lead a wooist to school, but one cannot make it think.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

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

Where are you getting an electric field from?, booya!

Houston, we have a problem...


Now, gas or plasma, jonesdave116?

You tell me how an electric field gets started in gas and I’ll tell you how an electric field gets started in a plasma.




I mean now we have established it’s the plasma in the AMPTE experiment.

Quote:

Of course it's sodding plasma

jonesdave116

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Where are you getting an electric field from?, booya!

Houston, we have a problem...


Now, gas or plasma, jonesdave116?

You tell me how an electric field gets started in gas and I’ll tell you how an electric field gets started in a plasma.




I mean now we have established it’s the plasma in the AMPTE experiment.

You've established precisely nothing. The neutrals at a comet massively outnumber the ions. And all those ions are of cometary origin. That is, from outgassing. Of gas. And I have already explained that an electric field cannot stop the solar wind, and only exists due to the interaction of the cometary species with the solar wind. A solar wind that is conspicuous by its absence at high activity levels. Therefore, any interaction between the solar wind and cometary ions and electrons, is happening a long way from the DC.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

I mean now we have established it’s the plasma in the AMPTE experiment.

What was released into the solar wind? Ba gas or Ba plasma? The ion/ electron-neutral friction came from the interaction involving which neutrals, exactly?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 13 Mar 2020).
Sol88 is deluded with the idea that an electric field alone stops the solar wind at comets when he has been citing paper stating that is the comet coma that stops the solar wind!

Sol88 spews out his usual insane lies about posts and posters.
Utter gibberish and lies. I have said all along the DC formed from ion or electron friction. ... is clear to anyone with a few brain cells:

• A gas with ions and electrons is a plasma.
• The solar wind stopped ~95,000 kilometers from the DC at Halley's comet.
  That shows that Sol88 is deluded with his DC causes the solar wind to stop implication.
• The plasma in the AMPTE experiment is still irrelevant.
  The AMPTE experiment shows Sol88 is deluded to think that a DC needs a comet nucleus because a DC formed with no comet there!
  The AMPTE experiment shows Sol88 is insane with his cult's electric comet are rocks because there were no rocks in the experiment (except a rather large third rock from the Sun )!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

What was released into the solar wind? Ba gas or Ba plasma? The ion/ electron-neutral friction came from the interaction involving which neutrals, exactly?

Good one champ. You should be in the circus, never seen anyone back peddle that fast...

You did not ask what was released into the solar wind, you asked what i thought stopped the solar wind and its magnetic field.

I asked you, what is forming from the barium gas whilst being ionised?

and just to stop the merry go round that jonesdave116 like to play on,

Quote:

Fig 1

Sector of the expanding barium plasma, creating a magnetic cavity. The shielding current, j_h is carried by electrons in the boundary layer performing ExB drifts in response to the electric field, which retards the ions and maintains charge neutrality.

Quote:

Fig 4.


Sketch of the interaction of the solar wind with he comet's head and tail. The density distribution is taken from Fig.1 of ref.1.

Deflection of the solar wind ions and the recoil of the comet head balance the force extracting ions in the opposite direction.

The strongly modified electric field guides the solar wind electrons around the comets head. the recoil of the head causes an exit of the spacecraft in the direction of E₀

Dynamics of the AMPTE artificial comet

PLASMA and ELECTRIC FIELDS!!!

Gas and Friction...

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88's usual emphasizing of his demented questions and insane delusions about science, comets and the Sun.
Sol88 has the insane delusion that plasma is only the electrons in Fig 4 of "Dynamics of the AMPTE artificial comet" ! Plasma is mostly neutral gas + some ions and electrons.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Gas/plasma all the same really, ay?

Yeah, it kinda stuck out like dogs balls but jonesdave116 was adamant that it was Gas...

I found that jonesdave116 right from the start told you how the gas was turned into plasma. How come you missed it? Besides, the AMPTE experiment contained gas, not plasma, and that gas was turned into plasma by the same mechanism as present near comets.

Quote:

Now, back to the old chestnut what’s the difference between gas and plasma?

Or better put in the context of the diamagnetic cavity with would stop the solar wind, gas or plasma?

In the light of the above, this is rather irrelevant, wouldn't you say?

Quote:

Jonesdave116 alluded to up the page a bit, what is forming at the interface between the gas and the gas being ionised to become a plasma...

I would say it is more than an allusion. He has stated it quite clearly, several times.

Quote:

Supports me, in that it’s the electric field not jonesdave116’s bloody friction forming the cavity.

It is a bit of a problem that there is no electric field at the comet, right?

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So, we can agree? It’s plasma not gas, jonesdave116?

A plasma is a gas....

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Good one champ. You should be in the circus, never seen anyone back peddle that fast...

You did not ask what was released into the solar wind, you asked what i thought stopped the solar wind and its magnetic field.

I asked you, what is forming from the barium gas whilst being ionised?

and just to stop the merry go round that jonesdave116 like to play on,



Dynamics of the AMPTE artificial comet

PLASMA and ELECTRIC FIELDS!!!

Gas and Friction...

It is gas, and it is friction. Was there a diamagnetic cavity before the gas was released into the solar wind? What are the ions or electrons interacting with to cause the friction? Neutrals. A DC has nothing whatsoever to do with electric fields. An electric field is not going to stop the solar wind. It is a stupid suggestion, that points to a complete lack of understanding of the subject. As usual.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Sketch of the interaction of the solar wind with he comet's head and tail. The density distribution is taken from Fig.1 of ref.1.

Deflection of the solar wind ions and the recoil of the comet head balance the force extracting ions in the opposite direction.

The strongly modified electric field guides the solar wind electrons around the comets head. the recoil of the head causes an exit of the spacecraft in the direction of E0

Let's try this again for the hard of thinking;

What solar wind electrons? Where was the solar wind stopped at Halley? 100 000 km, right? Where was it stopped at 67P? Well, greater than 1500 km when the sunward excursion was made. And that was getting on for a couple of months after perihelion.
So, where was the DC surface at Halley? ~ 4500 km. And at 67P? A few hundred km. So, tell us again, what any electric field is doing all the way out there, nowhere near the cavity? Care to explain it? Scientifically? Because methinks that you haven't got the foggiest clue about any of the relevant science. You are just making crap up.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

A plasma is a gas....

Thought you were on holiday old mate?

A plasma is a gas....

Big call champ.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by steenkh

I found that jonesdave116 right from the start told you how the gas was turned into plasma. How come you missed it? Besides, the AMPTE experiment contained gas, not plasma, and that gas was turned into plasma by the same mechanism as present near comets.


In the light of the above, this is rather irrelevant, wouldn't you say?


I would say it is more than an allusion. He has stated it quite clearly, several times.


It is a bit of a problem that there is no electric field at the comet, right?

Cool, Plasma

Now the ions and electrons from this plasmas behaves in ways that seem to shield the solar wind.

Not sure friction is the best description though, jonesdave116...

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Cool, Plasma

Now the ions and electrons from this plasmas behaves in ways that seem to shield the solar wind.

Not sure friction is the best description though, jonesdave116...

I don't care what you think, as you have no understanding of the subject. Friction is what the scientists who do understand the subject call it, so that is good enough for me. And it doesn't work without a shed load of neutrals. What is the ratio of neutrals to ions in the DC? Shall I take a stab? From what I've read in the literature, and seen Tusenfem comment on, I'll go with 10⁵-10⁶:1. Care to have a go?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

I don't care what you think, as you have no understanding of the subject. Friction is what the scientists who do understand the subject call it, so that is good enough for me. And it doesn't work without a shed load of neutrals. What is the ratio of neutrals to ions in the DC? Shall I take a stab? From what I've read in the literature, and seen Tusenfem comment on, I'll go with 10⁵-10⁶:1. Care to have a go?

Understand the subject?



Friction? Gas?

The neutrals are just a best guesstimate based on comets being Dirtysnowballs or mostly ICE.

Since there mostly rock...with electric fields, electric currents...electric comets.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Understand the subject?



Friction? Gas?

The neutrals are just a best guesstimate based on comets being Dirtysnowballs or mostly ICE.

Since there mostly rock...with electric fields, electric currents...electric comets.

Moe content-free gibberish. What rock? There is none. What electric fields? What currents? You mean the ones induced due to outgassing? Why isn't all your impossible crap happening at asteroids? Your idiocy was dead before it was born. We knew definitively since '86 that there was water at comets. We knew from the same year that is was found close to the nucleus, where the solar wind wasn't reaching, therefore killing the idiot Thornhill's impossible mechanism stone dead. We knew, from '86, that there was zero magnetic field in the cavity, thereby mooting any claims of impossible electric woo on the nucleus. We knew since '05 that there was plenty of ice, after blasting it out of Tempel 1. And from '11 when seeing shed loads of it around Hartley 2. Your woo was dead in the water (!) long before Rosetta reached 67P.

[jonesdave116]

I could have added to the above that we also knew, from '84-5, that a diamagnetic cavity would form merely by releasing neutral gas into the solar wind. And we didn't need to blast ice out of Tempel 1, or see it around Hartley 2, to know it was there, as it had been detected in the coma of Hale-Bopp back in '97.
It is hardly our fault that the Grand Poobahs of your cult failed to clue you in to these previous detections and observations.

[Sol88]

Sounds very Dr Anariba’ish to me...

Never a factor in the mostly ice Dirtysnowball model of comets, I bet...

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

Quote:

Hot, simple chemistry

Minerals in Mercury's surface soil contain what are called hydroxyl groups (OH), which are generated mainly by the protons. In the model, the extreme heat helps to free up the hydroxyl groups then energizes them to smash into each other to produce water molecules and hydrogen that lift off from the surface and drift around the planet.

Some water molecules are broken down by sunlight or rise far above the planet's surface, but other molecules land near Mercury's poles in permanent shadows of craters that shield the ice from the sun. Mercury does not have an atmosphere and thus no air that would conduct heat, so the molecules become a part of the permanent glacial ice housed in the shadows.

Quote:

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

WoW! Plasma AND sublimation.

Whilst maybe not the dominant source of the minuscule amounts of water from 67P, it can and most probably does, contribute to the total “outgassing”.

Funnily enough, we then have a ionised gas for jonesdave116’s “diamagnetic” cavity...

Anyway happens, on asteroids, planets, moons AND comets!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

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

Sol88 shows his insanity yet again.
A plasma is a gas. Plasma just contains enough ionized gas that their properties have to be included for a full description of properties and dynamics.

Next post: Sol88 shows his insanity yet again.
We have been stating for months that comet coma stop the solar wind. Comet coma are plasma. Comet coma contain mostly neutral gas + ions + electrons. What stops the solar wind is everything in comet coma - neutral gas + ions + electrons. There is friction between the neutral gas + ions + electrons n the solar wind and the neutral gas + ions + electrons in the coma. Electromagnetic fields also divert the ions and electrons.

Next post: Sol88 shows his insanity yet again.
Almost 11 years of posts of insane ignorance of physics shows Sol88 does not know or is insanely deluded about the subject. The latter is more likely since we have demented support of all of his cult's obvious insanity. And we have given Sol88 many, many explanations but just get the same insane rants back.
Insane lie that neutrals are a "guesstimate" when they are an observed fact in comet coma. This is a basic part of science called spectroscopy that Sol88 is dementedly deluded about. For example and for others, neutral water molecules have a distinctive spectrum. So when the Swift X-ray telescope monitored the Deep Impact it detected a total of 5 million kg (11 million lb) of water and dust.

Next post: Sol88 shows his insanity yet again
Mercury is not a comet !
Comets never have temperatures of 400 C. Comets are not made of solid rock like Mercury (except in Sol88's and his demented cult's deluded heads).

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Moe content-free gibberish. What rock? There is none. What electric fields? What currents? You mean the ones induced due to outgassing? Why isn't all your impossible crap happening at asteroids? Your idiocy was dead before it was born. We knew definitively since '86 that there was water at comets. We knew from the same year that is was found close to the nucleus, where the solar wind wasn't reaching, therefore killing the idiot Thornhill's impossible mechanism stone dead. We knew, from '86, that there was zero magnetic field in the cavity, thereby mooting any claims of impossible electric woo on the nucleus. We knew since '05 that there was plenty of ice, after blasting it out of Tempel 1. And from '11 when seeing shed loads of it around Hartley 2. Your woo was dead in the water (!) long before Rosetta reached 67P.

Dirtysnowball! not needed

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Moe content-free gibberish. What rock? There is none. What electric fields? What currents? You mean the ones induced due to outgassing? Why isn't all your impossible crap happening at asteroids? Your idiocy was dead before it was born. We knew definitively since '86 that there was water at comets. We knew from the same year that is was found close to the nucleus, where the solar wind wasn't reaching, therefore killing the idiot Thornhill's impossible mechanism stone dead. We knew, from '86, that there was zero magnetic field in the cavity, thereby mooting any claims of impossible electric woo on the nucleus. We knew since '05 that there was plenty of ice, after blasting it out of Tempel 1. And from '11 when seeing shed loads of it around Hartley 2. Your woo was dead in the water (!) long before Rosetta reached 67P.

Well, with all this water ice on asteroids, where are their coma and tails?

Quote:

"I would concede that plenty of the water on Mercury was delivered by impacting asteroids," Jones said. "But there's also the question of where asteroids laden with water got that water. Processes like these could have helped make it."

"A comet or asteroid actually doesn't need to carry water because the collision alone with a planet or moon can also make water," Orlando said. "Mercury and the moon are always being hit by small meteoroids, so this is happening all the time."

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



So does a comet or asteroid have more water? One would be mostly ice the other mostly rock...

Water water everywhere, comets and asteroids!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

What are you talking about now? Yes, I have told you all this before. No comet, no electric woo, just the barium. Which starts off as neutral gas. Some of it gets ionised by photo-ionisation. The ions, or more likely electrons, then interact with the neutrals to produce the friction that creates the cavity. All of this with no rock and no electric woo.

Why hung up on photoionisation, champ?

Quote:

The energetic electrons have access to the surface of the nucleus and contribute as the main ionization source

And all this when

Quote:

The heliocentric distance was 3.8 au and the comet was weakly outgassing

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

Ice? Outgassing water vapour at 3.8au?

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

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

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

We have the mainstream, "dirty snowball" model that is needed to and has explained comets for 70 years based on centuries of observations.
Even the crazy Sol88 says that comets have ices (unless he has reverted to his previous insanity of no ices yet again). The physical fact is that ices will sublimate inside the frost line. Comets made of ices and dust will outgas to form a coma. The physical fact is that UV light from the Sun will ionize some of the gas and comet coma will be a plasma. Neutral gas + ions + elections are observed to physically and electromagnetically shield come nuclei from the solar wind.
Sol88 insanely repeats his delusion that Mercury is a comet !
Mercury's 400 C heat may help it make its own ice
This is the known physics that the solar wind can create water in regolith on the Moon and thus to a larger extent on Mercury. Water vapor can then travel to shadowed areas and build up as ices. Jones speculates that asteroids also form water by the same process.
Sol88 goes insane about the last quote in the article: ""A comet or asteroid actually doesn't need to carry water because the collision alone with a planet or moon can also make water," Orlando said. "Mercury and the moon are always being hit by small meteoroids, so this is happening all the time.". This is not Sol88's demented dogma that there is no ices on comets. Every comet we have looked at has ices. Orlando says that a comet does not [b]need [/B ]to have water ices because the impact cam make water. Orlando is an astronomer and is not saying the comets have no water ices.
This is part of Sol88 spews out his insane insult of M. A’Hearn and all astronomers yet again !.

Next post: Sol88 showing how insane Sol88 is with demented lies.
Only the crazy Sol88 would think that active asteroids are actual comets outgassing because they are made of ices and dust forming a coma, dust tail and ion (gas) tail. List of active asteroids shows the many causes of their activity. Ice sublimation is from exposure of relatively small pockets of ice that we expect asteroids to have.

Next post: Sol88 showing how insane Sol88 is with demented lies.
Sol88 cites a paper, blatantly lies abut it and is insanely ignorant as he has been for the last 11 years!
Vertical structure of the near-surface expanding ionosphere of comet 67P probed by Rosetta

Quote:

The plasma environment has been measured for the first time near the surface of a comet. This unique data set has been acquired at 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko during ESA/Rosetta spacecraft's final descent on 2016 September 30. The heliocentric distance was 3.8 au and the comet was weakly outgassing. Electron density was continuously measured with Rosetta Plasma Consortium (RPC)–Mutual Impedance Probe (MIP) and RPC–LAngmuir Probe (LAP) during the descent from a cometocentric distance of 20 km down to the surface. Data set from both instruments have been cross-calibrated for redundancy and accuracy. To analyse this data set, we have developed a model driven by Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and Neutral Analysis–COmetary Pressure Sensor total neutral density. The two ionization sources considered are solar extreme ultraviolet radiation and energetic electrons. The latter are estimated from the RPC–Ion and Electron Sensor (IES) and corrected for the spacecraft potential probed by RPC–LAP. We have compared the results of the model to the electron densities measured by RPC–MIP and RPC–LAP at the location of the spacecraft. We find good agreement between observed and modelled electron densities. The energetic electrons have access to the surface of the nucleus and contribute as the main ionization source. As predicted, the measurements exhibit a peak in the ionospheric density close to the surface. The location and magnitude of the peak are estimated analytically. The measured ionospheric densities cannot be explained with a constant outflow velocity model. The use of a neutral model with an expanding outflow is critical to explain the plasma observations.

This is a measurement by the ESA/Rosetta spacecraft as it descended to crash on the nucleus on 2016 September 30. 67P has passed perihelion and has been heated up by the Sun. To anyone with a brain the residual heat will extend outgassing beyond the current snow line.