ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th August 2018, 03:05 PM   #3961
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,263
More than 1060 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion, insults, and lies from 6 July 2009 to 27 July 2018

Another ~155 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion, derails, insults, and lies from 27 July 2018 to 14 August 2018

Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.

18 November 2010: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions by Wal Thornhill
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
13 April 2018: A couple of the delusions in Scott's Birkeland current paper.

The electric comet delusion has at least 45 years without a scientific electric comet model or observations to support it!

Over 3 years of the fear of doing basic physics: 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.

Last edited by Reality Check; 13th August 2018 at 03:07 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2018, 03:12 PM   #3962
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,147
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
and diecussed is not a typo, it's been discussed to death
sol comes again and again and again with the same questions, statements, whatever
claims to calculate somethng, but then needs others to do it for him
how about that help from thunderdolts, solly, did they give you any?
Yeah good idea. Who would won’t to bring up the whole super duper space plasma physicist and MHD being totally inadequate for application at comets.

And that CRANK sol88 banging on about charge separation in space plasma’s!

Yeah that WAS embarrassing.

Now are you shore those electrons and ions are eventually neutralising BEFORE the end of the computational domain at 1500km?



And your absolutely positive that there are NO DOUBLE LAYERS at comets accelerating, trapping and deflecting ions and electrons?

The internet never forgets.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2018, 03:17 PM   #3963
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,147
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Have a look at figure 7 in the paper. It'll be sod all, relatively speaking, and is irrelevant, as it is not a charge on the nucleus. We know what that needs to be, and it is physically impossible.
Seems we have a another “ions and electrons eventually neutralise each other” argument????

Please show the figure in V/m for the ambipolar electrical field centred on the nucleus?

You know the one that’s expected to be significant close to the nucleus

Some numbers please.

Because “sod all” and significant mean different things , don’t they jd116?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2018, 03:22 PM   #3964
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,011
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Seems we have a another “ions and electrons eventually neutralise each other” argument????

Please show the figure in V/m for the ambipolar electrical field centred on the nucleus?

You know the one that’s expected to be significant close to the nucleus

Some numbers please.

Because “sod all” and significant mean different things , don’t they jd116?
We know that it isn't particularly large, don't we? Remember, Philae, and eventually Rosetta, landed on the thing, and were not ripped apart into their constituent atoms, as they would have been had there been ~ 100 gigavolts on the surface. And that is what you need.
Philae even had detectors in its feet and elsewhere to measure current. A current created by the spacecraft itself to test the electrical permittivity of the surface material. What did they measure? Sod all would be a fairly accurate (albeit unscientific) description.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 13th August 2018 at 03:27 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2018, 06:00 PM   #3965
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,263
Thumbs down Back to his deluded "MHD being totally inadequate for application at comets" lie

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yeah good idea. Who would won’t to bring up the whole super duper space plasma physicist and MHD being totally inadequate for application at comets.
14 August 2018: Back to his deluded "MHD being totally inadequate for application at comets" lie.

MHD is adequate for comets for the cases for which is MHD is appropriate as explained many times .
When we are looking at details of plasma around comets then MHD is appropriate. When we are looking at the big picture then we can neglect the "magneto" part of MHD.

Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.

+ a repeated "MHD being totally inadequate for application at comets" lie.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2018, 08:49 PM   #3966
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,011
Quote:
Some numbers please.

Because “sod all” and significant mean different things , don’t they jd116?
Well, Vigren and Eriksson modelled the comet around perihelion with an ambipolar field. They used 5V and 10V. Sounds pretty modest to me.

A 1D Model of Radial Ion Motion Interrupted by Ion–Neutral Interactions in a Cometary Coma
Vigren, E. & Eriksson, A. I.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...81/aa6006/meta
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 13th August 2018 at 08:52 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2018, 11:20 PM   #3967
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,363
Of course the ambipolar electric field cannot be very strong, like Sol's requested 100 V to 100 kV, and why not?
Because the electric field is limited to the energy difference between the ions and electrons, see also Vigren & Andersson, magnitude kB Te / q, see figure 4 with a value of 10 V. The energies of the electrons seem to agree with the measurements of LAP (section 5.6)
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2018, 11:22 PM   #3968
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,011
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Guess we’ll have to wait

Size of a plasma cloud matters. The polarisation electric field of a small-scale comet ionosphere Hans Nilsson
Did you even read that paper? Can you not see where they model the polarization electric field? I would suggest looking at figs. 5, 6 & 7. We are talking about something comparable to, or less than, the solar wind electric field. In figs. 5 & 6 they use log10 values for some reason. The highest value is log10 (4.5). That is ~ 65% of the solar wind E field strength.
The top panel of fig. 7 shows values for the net E field in the mV/ m range.

Not that it has anything to do with any unobserved enormous charge on the nucleus.

Size of a plasma cloud matters
The polarisation electric field of a small-scale comet ionosphere

Nilsson, H. et al.
https://www.herbertgunell.se/pdfpape...son_etal18.pdf
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 13th August 2018 at 11:31 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2018, 11:50 PM   #3969
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,363
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yeah good idea. Who would won’t to bring up the whole super duper space plasma physicist and MHD being totally inadequate for application at comets.
Looks like we see a strong inferiority complex here.

MHD is perfectly fine for comets, look for example at the Giotto tail crossing of comet 21P/Giacobini-Zinner as presented by Slavin et al. [1986]. Of course it depends on what you are looking at (mmm how many times have I said that now already?) To look at the large structure of the tail (like in Slavin's paper) which is much larger than the ion gyro radius at 21P, MDH very well describes the observed magnetic structure of the tail, see the nice two lobes of oppositely directed magnetic field.

If one, however, wants to look at the fine structure, as small scales, at 67P or at 21P or at 1P, then any plasma physicist will tell you that you cannot use MHD.

Like I say, you don't use general relativity to calculate how long it takes for the apple to fall onto Newton's head.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And that CRANK sol88 banging on about charge separation in space plasma’s!

Yeah that WAS embarrassing.
Yes, it was embarrassing for you, because the charge separation that you want simply does not occur. You want strong strong fields, which just simply cannot occur. You grab every straw, every notion of electric field or charge separation, without actually knowing anything about it.

You see electric field mentioned in a paper and you see "strong discharges machining the surface of the comet" whereas the electric fields are limited.

The strongest field will be the convection electric field, because of the moving magnetic field. This is the field that accelerates newly created ions and make them gyrate around the magnetic field. This is about 2 mV/m. The other fields, basically are limited the by energy of the electrons and ions, which are on the order of 10 eV or so, over large distances of kilometers, leads to fields of less then 1 mV/m. Also your beloved double layers can only have a strength that is related to the energy difference between the electrons and ions, unless you can find a driver that will enhance them, like in the Earth's magnetosphere, where density cavities create strong electric fields because the current that is already flowing must be maintained, and this is not the case at the comet.

So, there might be a bit of charge separation, creating some weak electric fields, but there are no electric comet electric fields and charge separations that can machine the surface of the comet. If they would be there, then LAP would have measured them, and if machining would happen, definitely MAG would have measured signatures of that.

Therefore, I denied all of your "charge separation" claims, as they have to be seen in context.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Now are you shore those electrons and ions are eventually neutralising BEFORE the end of the computational domain at 1500km?
Jezus ******* christ man, are you really incapable of comparing two panels in a figure?

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And your absolutely positive that there are NO DOUBLE LAYERS at comets accelerating, trapping and deflecting ions and electrons?
I have no evidence that any have been measured, but you can, of course, go to PSA and download the data and search for yourself.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The internet never forgets.
Yeah, won't your children be happy about that.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:03 AM   #3970
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,321
Sol88, what happened to your calculations of Coulomb's and Newton's laws? You started out, an error was pointed out for you, and then you changed subject. Why? What was your conclusion? Can you correct your calculations and show that you are right, or are you conceding that these laws are contradicting your arguments?
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:43 AM   #3971
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,011
Quote:
In figs. 5 & 6 they use log10 values for some reason. The highest value is log10 (4.5). That is ~ 65% of the solar wind E field strength.
Whoops, should be 45%.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:19 AM   #3972
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,363
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Did you even read that paper? Can you not see where they model the polarization electric field? I would suggest looking at figs. 5, 6 & 7. We are talking about something comparable to, or less than, the solar wind electric field. In figs. 5 & 6 they use log10 values for some reason. The highest value is log10 (4.5). That is ~ 65% of the solar wind E field strength.
The top panel of fig. 7 shows values for the net E field in the mV/ m range.

Not that it has anything to do with any unobserved enormous charge on the nucleus.

Size of a plasma cloud matters
The polarisation electric field of a small-scale comet ionosphere

Nilsson, H. et al.
https://www.herbertgunell.se/pdfpape...son_etal18.pdf
i have to correct here, the contour lines denote the number of data points that fall into the parameter region, not the electric field, for the e field you need the colourbar. the two white lines show the 10% level if the solar wind electric field, but is also in log10 (for whatever reason)
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:50 AM   #3973
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,011
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
i have to correct here, the contour lines denote the number of data points that fall into the parameter region, not the electric field, for the e field you need the colourbar. the two white lines show the 10% level if the solar wind electric field, but is also in log10 (for whatever reason)
Ye Gods! I well and truly misread that, then! Should have stuck to Fig. 7. Mind you, the conclusions give a pretty good indication of the field strength, when they say:

Quote:
(1) Once activity rises enough, the electric field of the comet ionosphere to a large extent cancels the solar wind electric field inside the comet ionosphere. There the ambipolar electric field likely dominates.
(2) The cancellation is not perfect, which results in a significant anti-sunward directed electric field with a strength of the order of 10% of the magnitude of the solar wind electric field
That indicates to me that the ambipolar field is comparable in strength to the SW E field.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:19 PM   #3974
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,147
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Sol88, what happened to your calculations of Coulomb's and Newton's laws? You started out, an error was pointed out for you, and then you changed subject. Why? What was your conclusion? Can you correct your calculations and show that you are right, or are you conceding that these laws are contradicting your arguments?

Well I’m gettting

22.10uC for Rosetta
10km = distance
.3 Newton’s of force

Gives me 151 coulombs

After all I’m not replacing Newton’s with Coulombs law just “modifying” gravity...
Quote:
We maythough conclude that the magnitude of the forces that would be involved already at a 20kV surface potential levels are interesting, especially for small asteroid in the range of r<100m,andcanbe used to “control”, to different extents, the asteroid gravity.
ELECTROSTATIC TRACTOR FOR NEAR EARTH OBJECT DEFLECTION

And

Quote:
Prospects of Using a Pulsed Electrostatic Tractor With Nominal Geosynchronous Conditions
Along with some background

Asteroid electrostatic instrumentation and modelling
Electrostatic forces on grains near asteroids and comets

And indeed if jd116 MASSIVE charge happens upon a comet, they will disintegrate or “blow like an over charged capacitor”

Electrostatic disruption of a charged conducting spheroid


So a tiny little .3 Newton’s of force does not need jd116, Tom or Harvey’s wild claims of 30000 coulombs needed to “discharge” the nucleus and to appear to make to comet on 533kg/m3!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]

Last edited by Sol88; Yesterday at 02:24 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:28 PM   #3975
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,147
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Ye Gods! I well and truly misread that, then! Should have stuck to Fig. 7. Mind you, the conclusions give a pretty good indication of the field strength, when they say:



That indicates to me that the ambipolar field is comparable in strength to the SW E field.
Quote:
We conclude that the simple cloud model we used can point towards the relevant physics involved in the interaction between a small comet ionosphere and the solar wind and provide some relevant quantitative estimates of the electric eld strength and direction in the vicinity of the comet. For more detailed studies a proper simulation model is still needed, and our results indicate that important physics will be missed unless electrons and charge accumulation are taken properly into account.
Why is everyone scared of electrons?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:54 PM   #3976
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,147
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Sol88, what happened to your calculations of Coulomb's and Newton's laws? You started out, an error was pointed out for you, and then you changed subject. Why? What was your conclusion? Can you correct your calculations and show that you are right, or are you conceding that these laws are contradicting your arguments?
So,yeah, game on!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:14 PM   #3977
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,147
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well I’m gettting

22.10uC for Rosetta
10km = distance
.3 Newton’s of force

Gives me 151 coulombs

After all I’m not replacing Newton’s with Coulombs law just “modifying” gravity...

ELECTROSTATIC TRACTOR FOR NEAR EARTH OBJECT DEFLECTION

And



Along with some background

Asteroid electrostatic instrumentation and modelling
Electrostatic forces on grains near asteroids and comets

And indeed if jd116 MASSIVE charge happens upon a comet, they will disintegrate or “blow like an over charged capacitor”

Electrostatic disruption of a charged conducting spheroid


So a tiny little .3 Newton’s of force does not need jd116, Tom or Harvey’s wild claims of 30000 coulombs needed to “discharge” the nucleus and to appear to make to comet on 533kg/m3!

Also interesting to note the effect would be the most pronounced with a terminator orbit.

Wonder where Rosetta orbited the most?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:19 PM   #3978
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,147
You still here Indagator?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:02 PM   #3979
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,263
An insane "Why is everyone scared of electrons?" question

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Why is everyone scared of electrons?
15 August 2018: An insane "Why is everyone scared of electrons?" question to derail from his many electric comet delusions.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:05 PM   #3980
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,321
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well I’m gettting

22.10uC for Rosetta
10km = distance
.3 Newton’s of force

Gives me 151 coulombs
It seems to me that you are ignoring the comments on your calculations. It was pointed out that the distance did not matter, but you still actually as if it matters. Can't you show the calculation that you make where the distance is not factored out? Although I am dead certain that you are wrong, I still think is instructive for everyone if you could point out errors in the calculations that the others have shown, rather than skipping the subject to head down a new argument.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:59 AM   #3981
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,363
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Why is everyone scared of electrons?
Who is afraid of electrons?
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:00 AM   #3982
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,363
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Also interesting to note the effect would be the most pronounced with a terminator orbit.

Wonder where Rosetta orbited the most?
Please explain
Please put links in to the papers you think are important
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:37 AM   #3983
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,363
So Solly wants to equate the "missing force" with electrostatic effects, because the comet is solid rock and not porous.
As already discussed, the distance to the comet does not matter, we just search for the missing force, which would be:

<br />
F_{mis} = \frac{G \Delta M_{67p} M_{ros}}{R^2} = \frac{k q_{ros} q_{67p}}{R^2}<br />

So we take the mass of Rosetta as 1250 kg, and the missing mass, according to Solly is about 401E12 kg.
We take the charge of Rosetta as 1.e-8 Coulomb and the charge of 67P as unknown.
Wonder, wonder, the R2 falls out at both sides of the second = sign.

So we get that

<br />
q_{67p} = \frac{G \Delta M_{67p} M_{ros}}{k q_{ros}}<br />

G = 6.67E-11 and k = 9.0E12, and then nicely all the powers of 10 disappear if you write it out (and I did not make a mistake) and you get:

q67p = 6.67 * 401 * 1250 / 9 = 371481 C

Okay, but now, we know that Rosetta can have both positive and negative voltage, which means different charge, and thus 67P will have keep track of that, by varying in a similar way, so unloading and uploading about 700000 Coulombs, just in order to keep Rosetta in its orbit.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.