The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Lying again. What a surprise. The only people who keep prattling on about the 1950s model are the electric idiots. It is their strawman, and is of no relevance to their failed woo. Which has been sidestepped again, I see. No rock, no electric woo. No science, no mechanisms. Just ignorance and lies.

I repeat;



When are we going to get answers?

The only people who keep prattling on about the 1950s model are the electric idiots and M.Volwerk

Quote:

Using this, the radial dependence of the neutral gas density Nn can be formulated by the Haser [1957] model

Quote:

Taken together, this leads to a model of a cloud of dirtysnowballs far out in the solar system, some of which get perturbed and enter the inner solar system on a parabolic orbit. Heating the comet leads to outgassing and consequently ionization. The emitted volatiles are ionized and blown away by corpuscular radiation from the Sun (i.e., the solar wind).

Currents in Cometary Comae Martin Volwerk

Sorry tusenfem...

[Sol88]

Anywhoo,

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Oh yeah, "common sense" works sooooooo well in plasma physics.
And it is good to have an open mind, but it should not be so far open that your brain falls out (Carl Sagan, if I am not mistaken).

Perhaps the expert plasma man, can tell us if a magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field is able to exist in a magnetically turbulent environment?

as per

Quote:

We identify and characterize the magnetic field aligned 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.
A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

We seem to have a stand off with me 'ol mate RC.

I say Yes, reality check (and jonesdave116) says No

Link

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

The only people who keep prattling on about the 1950s model are the electric idiots and M.Volwerk



Currents in Cometary Comae Martin Volwerk

Sorry tusenfem...

And what has that got to do with what I said? Nothing. Try again.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Anywhoo,



Link

And....................? How many times do you need telling that the field only exists due to the outgassing? And is there to maintain q-n? And has nothing to do with your failed woo? Stick to your failed woo, yes? You have clue zero about plasma physics, so just leave it alone. Get your snout into the mag data, and find your impossible EDM (lol), and discharges. Go have a look at the MIRO data. And MUPUS. And SESAME. And CONSERT. Find us the non-existent rock. Stop runnig away from your failed woo, and deal with it. Who knows? It might even be therapeutic to realise that you have been conned for these past 15 years or so!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

The only people who keep prattling on about the 1950s model are the electric idiots and M.Volwerk



Currents in Cometary Comae Martin Volwerk

Sorry tusenfem...

Jesus H. Christ! It is bad enough that you lie incessantly about what various authors say and/ or mean. It is quite something else when you do that about an author that actually posts here! Are you incapable of posting without lying and obfuscating? Or are your comprehension skills comparable to that of a brain damaged badger? It has to be one or the other.
What Tusenfem is talking about there, is part of a summation of the history of cometary observation and theory. The section that contains that quote is entitled, "WHIPPLE, OORT, BIERMANN & ALFVEN." It is describing what was known and believed at the time those people were writing. None of the relevant papers written by those people is later than 1957.

[Sol88]

Mate, ya with your old theories.


ENERGETIC electron impact ionisation of an "ice" free, homogeneous, rocky-like consolidated, with an organic covered chondritic surface, is what the bloody data is telling you

Except for RSI???? Tells you its a fluffy snowball...

Where is the ENERGETIC part of the equation coming from in a dirtysnowball model of mainstreams cometary sublimation model.

Not much in the way of surface ice on 67P, along with the BLINDING fact that YOUR THERMO-PHYSICAL MODELS FAIL.

Quote:

Even if the nucleus were composed of pure ice from a depth of 1.5 cm downwards, the entire surface of 67P would release a negligible water fraction of that observed (Gulkis et al. 2015; Keller et al. 2015b). This proves that all the water-vapour is coming from the uppermost surface layer thinner than 1 cm, i.e. the size of the largest pebbles ejected at 3.6 au inbound (Rotundi et al. 2015), and a factor of 100 thinner than the metre-sized chunks ejected at perihelion (Fulle et al. 2016). This fact further suggests that a force independent of vapour pressure is breaking the link between dust and the nucleus surface, after which the dust is accelerated in the coma by vapour drag.

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

Fail; verb (used without object)
to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved:

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Jesus H. Christ! It is bad enough that you lie incessantly about what various authors say and/ or mean. It is quite something else when you do that about an author that actually posts here! Are you incapable of posting without lying and obfuscating? Or are your comprehension skills comparable to that of a brain damaged badger? It has to be one or the other.
What Tusenfem is talking about there, is part of a summation of the history of cometary observation and theory. The section that contains that quote is entitled, "WHIPPLE, OORT, BIERMANN & ALFVEN." It is describing what was known and believed at the time those people were writing. None of the relevant papers written by those people is later than 1957.

Ummm....no he's not.

30.6. THE COMET HAIR’S MAKEUP

Quote:

Naturally, it is not the magnetic fields that are visible in the pictures of comets, but it is the sunlight reflected from the dust coming from the nucleus and emission lines from the neutral gas and plasma.

When a comet enters the region inside the orbit of Jupiter, the solar irradiation is strong enough to start heating the nucleus and for the volatiles to start sublimating.

In order to model the outgassing of a comet at a rate of Qn (molecules s.1), a spherical expansion is assumed where the gas moves away from the nucleus at a velocity of Ve (m/s).
The neutral gas escaping from the comet will get ionized by solar UV radiation and/or collisions with the solar wind at a rate of í (s.1). Using this, the radial dependence of the neutral gas density Nn can be formulated by the Haser [1957] model:

I believe that was 2018. Now like tusenfem and yourself say, great to use as an approximation but sadly, and as you say jonesdave116, "The only people who keep prattling on about the 1950s model are the electric idiots"

Seems you'd be catching me up in the stakes!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ummm....no he's not.

30.6. THE COMET HAIR’S MAKEUP


I believe that was 2018. Now like tusenfem and yourself say, great to use as an approximation but sadly, and as you say jonesdave116, "The only people who keep prattling on about the 1950s model are the electric idiots"

Seems you'd be catching me up in the stakes!

And WTF has that got to do with Whipple's model? Stop lying, and get a clue, you clown.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Mate, ya with your old theories.


ENERGETIC electron impact ionisation of an "ice" free, homogeneous, rocky-like consolidated, with an organic covered chondritic surface, is what the bloody data is telling you

Except for RSI???? Tells you its a fluffy snowball...

Where is the ENERGETIC part of the equation coming from in a dirtysnowball model of mainstreams cometary sublimation model.

Not much in the way of surface ice on 67P, along with the BLINDING fact that YOUR THERMO-PHYSICAL MODELS FAIL.

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

Fail; verb (used without object)
to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved:

Irrelevant gibberish, that has nothing to do with your failed woo. Deal with your failed woo, or go away.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Not much in the way of surface ice on 67P,

Idiot. What was excavated from just below the surface of Tempel1? What is exposed by landslides at 67P? What is floating around Hartley 2? How many bloody times do we have to go through this gish-gallop before you start addressing your failed woo? Hmm? DEAL WITH IT.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

And WTF has that got to do with Whipple's model? Stop lying, and get a clue, you clown.

Quote from jonesy himself "The only people who keep prattling on about the 1950s model are the electric idiots"

I could show him MORE papers that still actually, believe it or not still use models from the '50's

Not just the "electric idiots"!

So, stop being a , remove your foot from your mouth and go

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Quote from jonesy himself "The only people who keep prattling on about the 1950s model are the electric idiots"

I could show him MORE papers that still actually, believe it or not still use models from the '50's

Not just the "electric idiots"!

So, stop being a , remove your foot from your mouth and go

I asked you a question, you dolt. Answer it. What has what you quoted got to do with Whipple's model? You haven't got a clue what you are talking about, and never have. You are a scientifically illiterate troll. So, deal with non-science, yes? Such as your failed woo.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Idiot. What was excavated from just below the surface of Tempel1? What is exposed by landslides at 67P? What is floating around Hartley 2? How many bloody times do we have to go through this gish-gallop before you start addressing your failed woo? Hmm? DEAL WITH IT.

Old papers, dude, old papers!

Not at 67P, it seems though. As the NEW papers state!

Not sure if its a flyby thing or not.

Jonesdave116, doubles down on hanging all he's hopes on one comet.

A comet by the way and as often forgot by me ;ol mate, has rock!

As stated in the Key Discoveries

Quote:

September 2005: Astronomers, using data from NASA's Sptizer Space Telescope and Deep Impact, come up with a list of compounds thought to be the recipe for planets, comets and other bodies in the solar system. Included are silicates, or sand, clay, carbonates, iron-bearing compounds and even aromatic hydrocarbons.

Though I also note,

Quote:

September 2005: Researchers discover a number of surprising facts about comet Tempel 1 from the Deep Impact experiment: Tempel 1 has a very fluffy structure made up of a fine dust that is weaker than a bank of powder snow, but that's held together by gravity; what appear to be impact craters can be seen on the surface of the comet; a huge increase of carbon-containing materials were detected when analyzing the comet's ejection plume, indicating that comets contain a substantial amount of organic material and may have brought that material to Earth at one time; and the comet's interior is well shielded from solar heating, meaning that the ice and other material deep within the comet nucleus may be unchanged from the early days of the solar system.

So, jonesy, your beloved Tempel 1 is a very fluffy structure made up of a fine dust that is weaker than a bank of powder snow, and at 67P the structure is

Quote:

Given that the 67P high friction coefficients are comparable, or even exceed, those found on Earth dry landslides (Legros, 2002), this implies a mechanically rocky-type behaviour for the cometary material.Our findings reject the idea that comets are fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces.

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

I mean, it's not me saying it but Alice Lucchetti1, Luca Penasa2, Maurizio Pajola1, Matteo Massironi3,1,2, Maria Teresa Brunetti4, Gabriele Cremonese1, Nilda Oklay5, Jean-Baptiste Vincent5, Stefano Mottola5, Sonia Fornasier6, Holger Sierks7, Giampiero Naletto8,9,2, Philippe L. Lamy10, Rafael Rodrigo11,12, Detlef Koschny13, Bjorn Davidsson14, Cesare Barbieri15, Maria Antonietta Barucci6, Jean-Loup Bertaux16 , Ivano Bertini15, Dennis Bodewits17, Pamela Cambianica2, Vania Da Deppo9 , Stefano Debei18, Mariolino De Cecco19, Jacob Deller7, Sabrina Ferrari2, Francesca Ferri2, Marco Franceschi3, Marco Fulle17, Pedro Gutiérrez21, Carsten Güttler7 , Wing-H. Ip22,23, Uwe Keller24,5, Luisa Lara21, Monica Lazzarin15, Jose Lopez Moreno21, Francesco Marzari8, Cecilia Tubiana do!

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Old papers, dude, old papers!

Idiot. They are observations, you lying clown. Nothing has changed them. You think the ice excavated from Tempel 1 suddenly isn't ice? Sod off and get an education, you lying clown.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

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

Which requires ice. So quit lying about that as well, and deal with your failed woo.

[jonesdave116]

I think we can take Sol the troll's persistent refusal to address the subject of this thread, the totally failed electric comet woo, as meaning that he has accepted that it is a complete failure. The thread therefore has no further point. Not that it ever did. It exists purely as a troll fest for a scientifically illiterate poster poser.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Idiot. They are observations, you lying clown. Nothing has changed them. You think the ice excavated from Tempel 1 suddenly isn't ice? Sod off and get an education, you lying clown.

What was the dust to ice ratio you guessed at Tempel 1?

besides

Quote:

The Haser formula 6,7 for the number of molecules within a circular aperture is used to convert the number of OH molecules to the water production rate of the comet.

A large dust/ice ratio in the nucleus of comet 9P/Tempel 1

Quote:

Lying again. What a surprise. The only people who keep prattling on about the 1950s model are the electric idiots. It is their strawman, and is of no relevance to their failed woo. Which has been sidestepped again, I see. No rock, no electric woo. No science, no mechanisms. Just ignorance and lies.

So you over estimated the water, again, drop kick!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Really? Which comets? Which meteorites? How much ice is in near Earth asteroids? How much are they outgassing? How much was Hale-Bopp outgassing? And none of this is of any relevance to your failed woo. You need terrestrial rock, and electric woo. You haven't got it. As we have known for decades. So, why are you still here?

Ohh, sorry, terrestrial rock?

Like clay's and carbonates?

Quote:

September 2005: Astronomers, using data from NASA's Sptizer Space Telescope and Deep Impact, come up with a list of compounds thought to be the recipe for planets, comets and other bodies in the solar system. Included are silicates, or sand, clay, carbonates, iron-bearing compounds and even aromatic hydrocarbons.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Which requires ice. So quit lying about that as well, and deal with your failed woo.

Nope.

Quote:

Given that the 67P high friction coefficients are comparable, or even exceed, those found on Earth dry landslides (Legros, 2002), this implies a mechanically rocky-type behaviour for the cometary material.

Surely, you can't foot both feet in your mouth at once?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

What was the dust to ice ratio you guessed at Tempel 1?

besides

A large dust/ice ratio in the nucleus of comet 9P/Tempel 1



So you over estimated the water, again, drop kick!

And WTF has the Haser model got to do with Whipple's model, you clown? And it is a perfectly reasonable model for a point source, and nobody is claiming otherwise. Except you ,and you haven't got a clue. So, what is your uneducated point? Spell it out.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

I think we can take Sol the troll's persistent refusal to address the subject of this thread, the totally failed electric comet woo, as meaning that he has accepted that it is a complete failure. The thread therefore has no further point. Not that it ever did. It exists purely as a troll fest for a scientifically illiterate poster poser.

I mean simple question champ. Fair play

What is the dust to ice ratio at Tempel 1?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Nope.




Surely, you can't foot both feet in your mouth at once?

Lying clown. I ******* quoted umpteen passages from that paper specifically saying it is not ******* rock, you idiot. Care to deal with that, liar?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

I mean simple question champ. Fair play

What is the dust to ice ratio at Tempel 1?

Who ******* cares? What has it got to do with your failed woo, you idiot? What has it got to do with thousands of tonnes of ice being excavated? Ice that shouldn't be there, according to idiots like you. How about dealing with that rather glaring failure of your woo?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

And WTF has the Haser model got to do with Whipple's model, you clown? And it is a perfectly reasonable model for a point source, and nobody is claiming otherwise. Except you ,and you haven't got a clue. So, what is your uneducated point? Spell it out.

LINK

All from the '50s my slowlearning friend!

You said on the ELECTRIC IDIOTS!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Who ******* cares? What has it got to do with your failed woo, you idiot? What has it got to do with thousands of tonnes of ice being excavated? Ice that shouldn't be there, according to idiots like you. How about dealing with that rather glaring failure of your woo?

Yeah, guessed at use the 1950s HASER model.

The one only the electric idiot use!


And you don't have a number for the dust to ice ratio. So you CANT post it obviously!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

LINK

All from the '50s my slowlearning friend!

You said on the ELECTRIC IDIOTS!

Nope, it has nothing to do with the 50s, you idiot. And it has nothing to do with Whipple. Get that through your thick skull. It has to do with the time it takes for water vapour to be broken down into its constituent parts. Namely, OH. And has been revised far more recently than the 50s. It is a perfectly good model for a point source. And nobody is claiming differently. Nobody with a clue about the science, that is.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Yeah, guessed at use the 1950s HASER model.

The one only the electric idiot use!


And you don't have a number for the dust to ice ratio. So you CANT post it obviously!

I don't need to post anything, you clown. This is about your failed woo. And the dust: ice ratio has nothing to do with your failed woo. What you should be addressing, but keep running away from, is the size of the crater, and the fact that thousands of tonnes of ice were excavated from it. That kills your woo. So, deal with it, woo boy, or go away.

[Sol88]

Too scared I see.

Found this...

Quote:

yields a dust/ice ratio of 20, and 23.5 a ratio of 100.

Quote:

The most likely explanation for the brightness increase during the first 40 min after the impact is that the dust grains fragmented into
smaller and smaller grains, increasing their scattering efficiency. The fragmentation is most probably caused by water ice sublimation driven by solar irradiation.

Quote:

A large dust/ice ratio in the nucleus of comet 9P/Tempel 1

probably and likely

And you base your argument on this???

Really is no hope, for you I fear my friend!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Too scared I see.

Found this...



probably and likely

And you base your argument on this???

Really is no hope, for you I fear my friend!

Lying idiot. How many frakking times have I linked the paper that spectroscopically identifies water ice? Huh? I even posted an email from the lead scientist confirming that it was water ice. You are a pathetic, pathological liar. What the hell are you doing here? Other than trolling?

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by Sol88

I mean simple question champ. Fair play

What is the dust to ice ratio at Tempel 1?

“Fair play” would involve you explaining why Rosetta was not fried to a crisp, by an EDM jet, the likes of which created the Grand Canyon 20,000 years ago, when Venus came within kissing distance of the Earth.

[jonesdave116]

So, here we go again;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=691

The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1
Jessica M. Sunshine, Olivier Groussin, Peter H. Schultz, Michael F. A’Hearn, Lori M. Feaga, Tony L. Farnham, Kenneth P. Klaasen (2007)
https://www.semanticscholar.org/pape...a01f2a50dd12a3

Quote:

Abstract;

The Deep Impact flyby spacecraft includes a 1.05 to 4.8 μm infrared (IR) spectrometer. Although ice was not observed on the surface in the impact region, strong absorptions near 3 μm due to water ice are detected in IR measurements of the ejecta from the impact event. Absorptions from water ice occur throughout the IR dataset beginning three seconds after impact through the end of observations, ∼ 45 min after impact.
Spatially and temporally resolved IR spectra of the ejecta are analyzed in conjunction with laboratory impact experiments. The results imply an internal stratigraphy for Tempel 1 consisting of devolatilized materials transitioning to unaltered components at a depth of approximately one meter. At greater depths, which are thermally isolated from the surface, water ice is present. Up to depths of 10 to 20 m, the maximum depths excavated by the impact, these pristine materials consist of very fine grained (∼1 ± 1 μm) water ice particles, which are free from refractory impurities.

And;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=692

Investigation of dust and water ice in comet 9P/Tempel 1 from Spitzer observations of the Deep Impact event
Gicquel, A. et al. (2012)
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pd...aa18718-11.pdf

Quote:

Abstract;

A sustained production of water is observed, which can be explained by the sublimation of pure ice grains with sizes less than 1 μm and comprising a mass of ice of (0.8 − 1.8) × 10⁷ kg.

And;

Detection of water ice grains after the DEEP IMPACT onto Comet 9P/Tempel 1
Schulz, R. et al. (2006)
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pd...12/aahi281.pdf

Quote:

Methods: The comet was observed with the XMM-Newton Observatory. We used the EPIC camera for X-ray imaging and the Optical Monitor for monitoring in the ultraviolet and visible spectral range.

Results: An outburst of the comet nucleus was observed as a result of the impact and the evolution of the coma was monitored in gas and dust. Our observations led to the first detection of icy grains in a comet at 1.5 AU from the Sun.

Conclusions: We showed for the first time that the material ejected from the nucleus of a comet contains icy grains, even at small heliocentric distance.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

And then incorrectly modeled! Even you used the Haser model from the '50's
<snipped all stuff that had nothing to do with the ratio of neutral gas over ionized gas.>

Measurements by intstruments are measurements by instruments.
That deliver actual numbers, nothing modeled there, not even by your favourite Haser model.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Perhaps the expert plasma man, can tell us if a magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field is able to exist in a magnetically turbulent environment?

The electric field is there, but it does not have the characteristics that a double layer has, for one, it is created because the electrons move faster away from the nucleus (because they are several times 1836 times lighter) than the ions.

Again, hammering on wanting to have your sacret divine double layer is totally missing the whole point of plasma physics around a comet.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Got a fairly handy grasp!

Not every electric field is a double layer.

Double layers are special electric fields! Doing special plasmery stuff, like this!

Okay you have a "grasp", now explain why your double layer will accelerate ions and electrons and positively and negatively charged dust in the same direction.

Your double layers are indeed doing "special plasmery stuff."

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

The only people who keep prattling on about the 1950s model are the electric idiots and M.Volwerk



Currents in Cometary Comae Martin Volwerk

Sorry tusenfem...

Care to put that into context?
I guess not, because you're not the contexty type.

The cloud of dirty snowballs is in the section "30.2. WHIPPLE, OORT, BIERMANN, AND ALFVÉN" where the history of the comets and Oort cloud etc. is discussed up to the year 1957, decades before the first actual encouter with a comet.

The Haser model is totally physical model which describes the neutral density of an expanding cloud of neutrals that are embedded in an ionizing source. The density falls off by 1/r^2, and there is an exponential fall-off because of the ionization. This is the "spherical cow", which describes well everything on large scales around comets. If an expanding cloud of gas would not adhere to this model, then we would be in big trouble, as then we could throw away some of the very basics of hydrodynamics and plasma physics.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Anywhoo,

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Oh yeah, "common sense" works sooooooo well in plasma physics.
And it is good to have an open mind, but it should not be so far open that your brain falls out (Carl Sagan, if I am not mistaken).

Perhaps the expert plasma man, can tell us if a magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field is able to exist in a magnetically turbulent environment?

as per

Quote:

We identify and characterize the magnetic field aligned 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.

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



We seem to have a stand off with me 'ol mate RC.

I say Yes, reality check (and jonesdave116) says No.

Link

Possible you maybe able to help, tusenfem?

Can a magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field exist in a turbulent magnetic environment?

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Possible you maybe able to help, tusenfem?

Can a magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field exist in a turbulent magnetic environment?

What does Chief Acolyte Talbott have to say?

This is, after all, the Electric Comet Theory thread ...

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Okay you have a "grasp", now explain why your double layer will accelerate ions and electrons and positively and negatively charged dust in the same direction.

Your double layers are indeed doing "special plasmery stuff."

Quote:

Note that the cometary electrons are not coupled to the cometary ions and leave the source region along the magnetic field lines

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

You did read the paper, tusenfem?

Very easy to assume for sake of math that and using YOUR reasoning the

Quote:

The Haser model is totally physical model which describes the neutral density of an expanding cloud of neutrals that are embedded in an ionizing source. The density falls off by 1/r^2, and there is an exponential fall-off because of the ionization. This is the "spherical cow", which describes well everything on large scales around comets. If an expanding cloud of gas would not adhere to this model, then we would be in big trouble, as then we could throw away some of the very basics of hydrodynamics and plasma physics.

to enable ions, electrons, neutrals and dust to be "blown" off the nucleus.

The real picture is somewhat different and is complicated again because the surface of the nucleus appear to be a consolidated meteoric matrix with less water than chondritic meteorites!

So, big trouble only if you keep compounding the past errors.

Just look at the modeling needed on the plasma side of things at comets in the last 6 months or so.

MHD fell flat on it's face ages ago. Don't see it mentioned much anymore except in quite old outdated papers.

We have a spatial separation of charges!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

What does Chief Acolyte Talbott have to say?

This is, after all, the Electric Comet Theory thread ...

One of the surprising findings of the Rosetta mission is the presence of suprathermal electrons in the close cometary plasma environment with energies up to about 100 eV.

and is thought to affect dust grain charging processes

the cometary electrons negative particles are not coupled to the cometary ions and leave the source region along the magnetic field lines.

Quote:

Plain Language Summary Negatively and positively charged particles are observed simultaneously by the ion and electron sensor (IES) onboard the Rosetta spacecraft soon after encountering comet 67P/Churyumov�]Gerasimenko. The two signals are shifted in opposite directions consistent with their charge sign (+/.). These signal features, together with their energies extending much higher than solar wind energies, strongly suggest that they are charged small dust grains. While negatively charged small dust particles have been detected near a comet, this is the first observation of their positively charged counterparts.

Dust from the surface characterised by a rocky-like consolidated organically coated chondritic homogeneous composition.

So far

Feeling good!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

One of the surprising findings of the Rosetta mission is the presence of suprathermal electrons in the close cometary plasma environment with energies up to about 100 eV.

and is thought to affect dust grain charging processes

the cometary electrons negative particles are not coupled to the cometary ions and leave the source region along the magnetic field lines.



Dust from the surface characterised by a rocky-like consolidated organically coated chondritic homogeneous composition.

So far

Feeling good!

None of which has anything to do with your failed woo. Stick to your failed woo, yes? Where is your EDM (lol)? Show us in pretty pics that are contemporaneously detected in the mag data. All pics and mag data are publicly available. Get to it.