'Welease Wosetta!'

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby moonkoon » Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:05 pm

While GaryN is learning about the Lommel-Seeliger Law and Hapke radiative transfer, I might add that visual inspection of photos of the comet reveals what appears to be a surface composed of dust, gravel and somewhat unstable crumbly rock that is unusually active on some parts of the surface.

And apart from the odd bit of what appears to be frosty rime here and there, ice seems to be in short supply.
moonkoon
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby LaSuisse1 » Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:19 pm

I would suggest that posters also read the previous literature on comet missions. In particular those at Tempel 1 and Hartley 2. Between 8 000 & 18 000 tonnes of solid H2O ice was excavated from Tempel 1 by the impact there.
And at Hartley there was also a vast amount that was excavated by the CO2 jets on that comet. It is visible in many images on google, if you search for it. Again, this is not assumed to be ice. It is spectrally resolved as being ice.
So, the ice on comets most certainly is not in 'short supply'. If one naively expects it to be lying around on the surface, then it may appear so. Surface ice is generally transient in nature, but has been seen. A large patch of CO2 ice (~5000m^2) was seen by Rosetta, for instance.
And, of course, where else would the H2O and CO2 gas be coming from?
LaSuisse1
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:37 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby sketch1946 » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:43 pm

Where's the comet's water? Why can't you see the light?
ie Why are the Emperor's clothes not visible?
A: It's because of the Lommel-Seeliger Law!

"In cases where only relative magnitudes matter, so that the offset is arbitrary, the factor disappears into the offset."

The answer is in the maths, when something can't be found physically you turn to the wonderful world of virtual reality, the world of mathematical and probabilistic theory...
ie: The clothes are really there, you just can't see them, the reflected light is being absorbed by the clothes... you can't just naively expect to see something...
GaryN wrote:....the nucleus which, in general, appears very dark and rich in dehydrated organic material

The uninitiated see bare rocks, but smarter people who can understand al gibra, can see water, or at least they can see clear signs that water was there once, it's just that now it's gone...
however we can see proof that is was there by looking at the dehydrated rock... rock which has no more water left... :-)

Never mind, since we can't see water in the physical sense, we can go further and find it in the data... using maths...

'Bart' is going to work it all out...

"BART implements a Bayesian, Monte Carlo-driven, radiative-transfer scheme for extracting parameters from spectra of planetary atmospheres. BART combines a thermochemical-equilibrium code, a one-dimensional line-by-line radiative-transfer code, and the Multi-core Markov-chain Monte Carlo statistical module to constrain the atmospheric temperature and chemical-abundance profiles of exoplanets."

"We expand here an innovative Bayesian inversion method in order to study into detail the uncertainties of retrieved parameters."
https://www.science.gov/topicpages/h/hapke+radiative+transfer.html
It's truly unbelievable how accurately NASA can measure things these days, how to extract incredible accuracies, and statements, from inaccurate data:

How big is the earth? Can it be changing?

"The result? The scientists ***estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110817120527.htm
Wow! NASA can measure the earth to the thickness of a human hair!
All by itself this statement is cause for serious concern.... :-)

How on earth could this accuracy be achieved?
A: By combining datasets and applying maths of course!

"Here, we use multiple precise geodetic data sets and a simultaneous global ***estimation platform to determine that the ITRF2008 origin is consistent with the mean CM at the level of 0.5 mm yr−1, and the mean radius of the Earth is not changing to within 1σ measurement uncertainty of 0.2 mm yr−1."

So is this NASA accuracy real or mathematical?
There are immense practical problems synchronising satellites and data and even the atomic clocks on the satellites and on ground... plate tectonics drifts are published showing relative annual movements of large sections of the earth's 'plates' up to 15cm

"The GEOID96 geoid height model, which incorporates such a conversion surface, displays about 2.5 cm of accuracy (one sigma) between points spaced at 50 km or greater. GPS ellipsoidal height error of about 6 cm was observed ***after the computations."

"...an empirical covariance function was then developed. These results are portrayed in Figure 7. Unlike Figure 4, which was plotted to a distance of 1000 km, Figure 7 is only plotted out to 100 km. At this much closer scale, a drop is seen in the statistics from 5.8 cm at d[istance] = 0, down to 2.6 cm at d[istance] = 5 km. This reduction is evidence of an uncorrelated (white-noise) process. The source of the 5.8 cm of uncorrelated error is random error in the GPS ellipsoidal heights."

https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/gislis96.html
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby comingfrom » Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:55 pm

LaSuisse1 asked.

And, of course, where else would the H2O and CO2 gas be coming from?
Formed in the erosion process.
Electrical tensions during the erosion process breaks the rock mineral molecules into fundamental ionized elements which immediately start recombining into gaseous molecules. An O-- only needs a find 2 protons to become H2O, or 2 of them attach to a C to become CO2.

On another note.
When I read them say the discovery of organic molecules is proof that comets are pre-planetary material, and that comets seeded the planets for life to happen, I think equal would be true if comets originated from planets.
~Paul
comingfrom
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby comingfrom » Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:10 pm

Sketch wrote
The uninitiated see bare rocks, but smarter people who can understand al gibra, can see water, or at least they can see clear signs that water was there once, it's just that now it's gone...
however we can see proof that is was there by looking at the dehydrated rock... rock which has no more water left... :-)
I once couldn't see the water for the wood.
But now I'm "initiated", I see trees really are slow motion fountains, mostly water. ;-)

Judge not by appearances...
Not everything is as it looks, but in the case of comets it has become pretty obvious that they are rocks, and not snowballs.
Something else is causing the low density measurement, I believe, because they aren't in the solar plane.
The Sun's field potential must be different there.

~Paul
comingfrom
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby LaSuisse1 » Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:22 pm

I am sorry, but yet again all I am seeing is nonsense and non-science! First of all the H2O, CO2 etc is not inferred from maths! That is silly. It is spectroscopically resolved in IR and sub-mm. It cannot be anything else.
And what is all this about electrical tensions? What on Earth is that? Where is it coming from? Why can't it be detected?
And what 'rock' is being broken down by the non-existent process? There is no rock. CONSERT looked through the small lobe and sees no rock. MIRO looks at the near subsurface and sees no rock. It sees a thermal inertia inconsistent with rock. When it visited a rock, it saw rock (asteroid Steins).
And where are you getting O- from, and how is it managing to locate and attach itself to not just one H+ but two?!
This is just silliness. Where are you getting the H+ from, even if this were possible? The solar wind is nowhere to be seen when the comet is most active. Even if it were somehow in stealth mode and reaching the comet nucleus without being detected, you would be many orders of magnitude out to create the amount of H2O seen. It is trivial to do the maths, but pointless, as the mechanism doesn't make any scientific sense, and we know where the water and other gases are coming from anyway. Quite where you got that idea I shudder to think! It wasn't a scientist, I will guarantee that!

I found these papers and articles after a quick search:

Seasonal exposure of carbon dioxide ice on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko*
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/e ... ce.aag3161

Detection of exposed H2O ice on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.00551.pdf

Exposed water ice on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko*
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 16190.html

The diurnal cycle of water ice on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Be ... 6af009.pdf

Rosetta’s comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko sheds its dusty mantle to reveal its icy nature*
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/e ... ce.aag2671

Sublimation of icy aggregates in the coma of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko detected with the OSIRIS cameras onboard Rosetta.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.08774.pdf

http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/58575-icy-su ... a-s-comet/

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images ... in_Imhotep

The articles with * are paywalled, but I have read them.

Of course there are others regarding all the ice excavated at Tempel 1 and Hartley 2, but I haven't searched for them yet.
LaSuisse1
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:37 pm

current news from comet :-)

Unread postby moonkoon » Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:23 pm

And what is all this about electrical tensions? What on Earth is that? Where is it coming from? Why can't it be detected?


... In August 2014, the European Space Agency's Rosetta probe picked up a ticking sound — like a long string of slowed-down, low-pitched dolphin clicks — coming from Comet 67P/ Churyumov-Gerasimenko during its journey toward the sun. The comet's song was unique compared with sounds picked up from other comets. Now, scientists think they know what's creating this space rock's uncommon crooning.

The sound waves picked up by Rosetta are moving through the comet's magnetic field. Scientists with the mission now say the vibrations are set off by a stream of charged particles ejected from the surface of the space rock, according to a statement from ESA.

... the stream of plasma moves within the magnetic field in such a way as to create an unstable electric current. According to the statement from ESA, it is this current that ultimately exerts a force on the magnetic field, generating sound waves. ...


http://www.space.com/30323-mystery-of-c ... olved.html
moonkoon
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby GaryN » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:48 am

The problem here is down to mainstream making the assumption that comets are dirty ice balls, so they are looking to find what they expect to find, using those models. In the EU model the comet is assumed to be mainly silica and that ice can be created at the surface by other, perfectly valid mechanisms.
Alice shows us that the UV Ly-α line is strong in the coma and at the nucleus.
Image(too big to display):
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_h ... 5-fig1.jpg
Web page.
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_h ... 15/F1.html

With the NavCam image, you can not say it is not from UV emissions because you do not know the details of the NavCam and you will not find them. Yes, the CCD only has low sensitivity below 350nm, but, as with many other space based instruments, including Hubble, they use optics coatings such as Lumogen to convert the UV to usually green light, where the CCD is much more sensitive. The sensor also goes to 1100nm, but there are no filters, so just what are we seeing?
With the silica model, then the electric field measured at the comet is found to be plenty strong enough to pull some electrons out of the oxygen, so there is a source, and those electrons can be reused in other processes going on at the comet. Electro-chemistry.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/0 ... pace-news/
Evidence of Electrical Activity on Comet 67P: Towards an Electrochemical Framework for Cometary Phenomena
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2016/0 ... phenomena/
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2523
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby sketch1946 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:00 am

Hi LaSuisse1,
I don't know who is right or wrong when it comes to Astrophysics,
I assume you're like me, and like to think about what is really going on with the solar system, comets, etc...
it's fantastic seeing the images from the Rosetta probe...

When I commented on the lack of the Emperor's clothes, I was talking about a visible source on the surface for the water molecules in the coma, the source was not visible, no ice, no clothes.... sure it might be buried down there somewhere, which is most likely, but the physics of how the solar wind strips it off the comet needs rethinking?

so I understand your passion, a bit like a fundamentalist with an AK47...
I like to discuss things, like some perceived puzzles in current theories, so I got attracted
to this Thunderbolts site.. I presume you did too, since you're here, maybe you're not satisfied with some explanations which are currently on offer from mainstream science?

Maybe the molecules of the 'outgassing' are being ripped out by electrostatic fields, in the interaction of comet and solar and interstellar charged particles?
Recently a 3kHz signal was picked up by the Voyager probes which led to the discovery of
the Heliopause where the solar 'wind' meets interstellar space,
lately the Rosetta probe has found that 67P is ***singing too :-)
(I never heard of anybody who predicted that...)

Crazy, hey! 67P/Chury-etc can sing!
"ESA scientists think that the sound could be produced when neutral particles of the comet are sloughed off into space and electrically charged through ionization, but officials still aren't sure how the physics of the oscillations work.

"This is exciting because it is completely new to us," Karl-Heinz Glaßmeier, head of Space Physics and Space Sensorics at the Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany, said in a statement. "We did not expect this and we are still working to understand the physics of what is happening."
http://www.space.com/27737-comet-song-rosetta-spacecraft.html

That's like 'music of the spheres' stuff.. nah, better not go there....
No doubt at all mainstream comet theory will have a fix sometime soon....:-)
"In mythology, folklore and speculative fiction, 'shapeshifting' (or metamorphosis) is the ability of a being or creature [or ***scientific theory] to completely transform its physical form or shape. This is usually achieved through an inherent ability of a mythological creature, divine intervention, or the use of magic."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapeshifting

Similarly in 'mainstream' science, ideas and theories change quite regularly, so it's good in my opinion to keep an open mind....

"When Rosetta drew close to 67P two years ago, scientists discovered it seemed to be emitting a strange, unearthly song.

Before long, they'd determined that it was the plasma in the comet's environment interacting with the magnetic field carried by the solar wind to produce "magneto-acoustic waves".

The oscillations made by these waves were picked up by the instruments on Rosetta at a frequency far below the range at which humans can hear. But by increasing that frequency by a factor of about 10,000, the comet's "song" is revealed.

The scientists said the plasma waves detected were so unusual they'd be poring over the observations for years to come."

"ESA scientists think that the sound could be produced when neutral particles of the comet are sloughed off into space and electrically charged through ionization, but officials still aren't sure how the physics of the oscillations work.

"This is exciting because it is completely new to us," Karl-Heinz Glaßmeier, head of Space Physics and Space Sensorics at the Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany, said in a statement. "We did not expect this and we are still working to understand the physics of what is happening."

Could some of these 'fringe' ideas among all the 'crazy' stuff talked about by plasma enthusiasts be maddeningly right after all?
The True Origins Of Electric Comet Theory
http://www.rense.com/general54/trueor.htm

So are the instruments measuring the non-visible surface water molecules that appear out of nowhere by the strange phenomenon of 'outgassing'? I understand what this means from a human point of view, but how does a comet 'outgas' water? The old theory had it that the molecules were being stripped off the surface by the solar wind... since the surface is covered by a black complex surface, hardly any ice is visible to account for the H2O in the coma, where is it coming from and how is it being produced?

The 'outgassing' phenomenon doesn't seem to be directly correlated to distance from the sun, it's still quite active right out to ~3.5Au... and the description of 67P seems more accurately described as a jet-black icy dustball, rather than a dirty snowball...

COSAC analysed samples entering tubes at the bottom of the lander kicked up during the first touchdown, dominated by the volatile ingredients of ice-poor dust grains. This revealed a suite of 16 organic compounds comprising numerous carbon and nitrogen-rich compounds, including four compounds – methyl isocyanate, acetone, propionaldehyde and acetamide – that have never before been detected in comets.

Meanwhile, Ptolemy sampled ambient gas entering tubes at the top of the lander and detected the main components of coma gases – water vapour, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, along with smaller amounts of carbon-bearing organic compounds, including formaldehyde.

Importantly, some of these compounds detected by Ptolemy and COSAC play a key role in the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids, sugars and nucleobases: the ingredients for life. For example, formaldehyde is implicated in the formation of ribose, which ultimately features in molecules like DNA.

The existence of such complex molecules in a comet, a relic of the early Solar System, imply that chemical processes at work during that time could have played a key role in fostering the formation of prebiotic material.

Of course this shows the theory of dirty snowballs appears to have been wrong, at least in this particular comet, with the theory morphing from a primordial source of earth's water to now a source of 'prebiotic' life... forget the primordial water, now it's abiogenesis delivered by interplanetary ballistic missiles....

This demonstrates a complete disregard for sound principles of probability, ie Bayesian and Monte Carlo chains probabilities... demonstrating an appalling lack of scientific principles worse than my own biases :-)
The accidental seeding of complex carbon-based life-forms by comets is fundamentally unlikely... but I guess we're all here, so something must have happened... must keep an open mind :-)
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:56 pm

Thank you, LaSuisse1.

First of all the H2O, CO2 etc is not inferred from maths! That is silly. It is spectroscopically resolved in IR and sub-mm. It cannot be anything else.
I am not denying that water is found.

And what is all this about electrical tensions? What on Earth is that? Where is it coming from?
Something is causing cliffs to crumble, outgassing, ionization, jets, comet tails.
You implied the cause was phototonic.
I agree.

Why can't it be detected?
Because our detectors are tuned to detect ions.
They aren't tuned to detect electric currents.

And what 'rock' is being broken down by the non-existent process? There is no rock. CONSERT looked through the small lobe and sees no rock. MIRO looks at the near subsurface and sees no rock. It sees a thermal inertia inconsistent with rock. When it visited a rock, it saw rock (asteroid Steins).
My eyes see rock.
Philae bounced off a hard rock surface, and they said it was just lucky the harpoons didn't go off. The harpoons were supposed to go into the snow, or ice, but since it was hard rock, if the harpoons fired they would have propelled Philae into space again.

The cliff is made of rock. Some rock crumbled and exposed ice below the surface, according to their report. So there is rock. And mostly rock.

And where are you getting O- from, and how is it managing to locate and attach itself to not just one H+ but two?!
Rock minerals are mainly SiO2. If the erosion process break one molecule of rock, you get two Oxygens. If the breakup was due to a phototonic process, the Oxygens will be ionized when they break free from the Silicon.

This is just silliness.
I'm just proposing alternatives. You asked what, where, and why, and I am showing there are explanations.

There isn't a need to hang on to old concepts like they are the straws that will save.
The old concepts were derived before we had the data we have now.

Where are you getting the H+ from, even if this were possible?
The whole range of elements that make up rock minerals will be available if these molecules are being broken apart.

The spectrographs show all forms of hydroxides are present, not just water.
From that I postulate that combination is occurring in the dust jets.

The solar wind is nowhere to be seen when the comet is most active.
This would be correct, because the solar wind is confined near the Sun's equatorial plane.

But this is also what causes the low density measurements we get of comets.
And that is why they were thought to not be rock.
The density of the outgassing jets were found to be many times more dense than the comet itself.

Even if it were somehow in stealth mode and reaching the comet nucleus without being detected, you would be many orders of magnitude out to create the amount of H2O seen. It is trivial to do the maths, but pointless, as the mechanism doesn't make any scientific sense, and we know where the water and other gases are coming from anyway. Quite where you got that idea I shudder to think! It wasn't a scientist, I will guarantee that!
Scientists shouldn't shudder when presented with new information, but consider it objectively.

Thanks for the links, but as I said, I am not denying the presence of water.

I don't know if the alternates I present are right, but they seem viable to me, and fit better with what my eyes see, and with what I know of electro dynamics, than do the mainstream explanations we get from the likes of NASA.

Dust caused by cliff fall, and jets caused by outgassing, only leaves the questions.
What caused the cliff fall, and what causes the outgassing.

And dust indicates the comet is mainly rock. Doesn't it?
~Paul
comingfrom
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:12 am

LS: I am sorry, but yet again all I am seeing is nonsense and non-science!
Strong words. The point is that we were all expecting to see ice, and we didn't see ice, we saw a nearly completely black, albedo=0.06, dark and extremely diverse chemical blanket....


LS: First of all the H2O, CO2 etc is not inferred from maths! That is silly.
"The scientists analysed almost two years' worth of data from ROSINA, which detects neutral water molecules with its Double-Focussing Mass Spectrometer (DFMS).

“This is by no means trivial: ROSINA performs measurements locally, at ***specific points around the comet, and we need ***a model to extend them to the entire atmosphere,” adds Hansen.

The simplest model would be a spherical distribution of the outgassing centred around the nucleus but, given the complex shape and season cycle of Comet 67P/C-G, this would be ***a very crude approximation. For this reason, the ROSINA team developed a series of numerical ***simulations to accurately describe the comet's production of water, which are presented in a separate study led by Nicolas Fougere also of the University of Michigan.

From these ***simulations, which showed that the water production rate at a comet like 67P/C-G is highly inhomogeneous, Hansen and his colleagues derived an empirical model, which they then used to transform the local ROSINA measurements into ***estimates of the overall water production rate.

The results revealed that, during the first several months of observations, when the comet was at distances between 3.5 and 1.7 astronomical units (au) from the Sun, water was predominantly produced in the comet's northern hemisphere.

....RPC-ICA does not detect water directly, but rather measures the ratio of differently ionised Helium ions; since He+ ions arise mainly from collisions between alpha particles (He2+) from the solar wind and neutral molecules, such as water, found in the comet's atmosphere, this ratio can be used to estimate the amount of water produced at the comet.

Hansen and his collaborators have found some small discrepancies between the various data sets: for example, the measurements from ROSINA yield systematically higher values than those from VIRTIS. One possible reason for this is the different nature of the two experiments: ROSINA samples the gas ***in the coma at the spacecraft's position, while VIRTIS tends to observe closer to the nucleus, where the water production activity is potentially more confined than it is further out in the coma. The difference in measurements techniques and the discrepancy could potentially indicate an extended source of water in the ***coma itself

"Using a numerical data inversion, we derive the non-uniform activity distribution at the surface of the nucleus for these species, suggesting that the activity distribution at the surface of the nucleus has not significantly been changed and that the differences observed in the coma are solely due to the variations in illumination conditions. A three-dimensional Direct Simulation Monte Carlo model is applied where the boundary conditions are computed with a coupling of the surface activity distributions and the local illumination. The model is able to reproduce the evolution of the densities observed by ROSINA including the changes happening at equinox. While O2 stays correlated with H2O as it was before equinox, CO2 and CO, which had a poor correlation with respect to H2O pre-equinox, also became well correlated with H2O post-equinox. The integration of the densities from the model along the line of sight results in column densities directly comparable to the VIRTIS-H observations. Also, the evolution of the volatiles’ production rates is derived from the coma model showing a steepening in the production rate curves after equinox."

"Today analytical solutions or even direct numerical solutions to the Boltzmann equation are only possible for special cases. Otherwise, particle simulation approaches are normally used. The DSMC method (Bird 1994) is one of the most used approaches to find a numerical solution to the Boltzmann equation. Such an approach has been applied to the cometary coma for several decades (Combi 1996); in this paper, we use the Adaptive Mesh Particle Simulator (AMPS) code (Tenishev, Combi & Davidsson 2008; Tenishev, Combi & Rubin 2011; Fougere et al. 2013) to model the coma of comet 67P."

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/ ... ing-of-the

LS: And what is all this about electrical tensions? What on Earth is that?
"Voltage, electric potential difference, electric pressure or electric tension (formally denoted ∆V or ∆U, but more often simply as V or U, for instance in the context of Ohm's or Kirchhoff's laws) is the difference in electric potential energy between two points per unit electric charge."
"Each chemical species (for example, "water molecules", "sodium ions", "electrons", etc.) has an electrochemical potential (a quantity with units of energy) at any given point in space, which represents how easy or difficult it is to add more of that species to that location. If possible, a species will move from areas with higher electrochemical potential to areas with lower electrochemical potential..."

Of particular note for the scientific understandings Rosetta has already revealed, the first was the discovery of a magnetic field around comet 67P in the 40-50 mH range created by the comet’s interaction with the solar wind
there is an electric and magnetic field around the comet that does not originate from the nucleus of the comet itself

This discovery was made possible by using both the Rosetta spacecraft – which detected the magnetic field – and the Philae lander, which returned definitive evidence that the comet’s nucleus had no magnetic field.

So the facts are in plain sight here, the observed magnetic field around the comet is not produced by the comet, the magnetic field around 67P is produced by something else

"The newly formed ions are affected by the solar wind ***electric and magnetic fields and can be accelerated to high speeds. When the comet gets close enough to the Sun, its atmosphere becomes so dense and ionized that it becomes electrically conductive. When this happens, the atmosphere starts to resist the solar wind and a comet's magnetosphere is born – a region surrounding the comet that is shielded from the solar wind."
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/01/22/watching-the-birth-of-a-comet-magnetosphere/

----------------------------------------------------------
One need only review the extraordinary spectacle provided by Comet Holmes 17P to see how deep the crisis in cometology reaches. In October of 2007, Holmes suddenly and unexpectedly brightened by a factor of a million. In less then 24 hours, it grew from a small 17th magnitude comet to a magnitude of 2.5, so large it was easily visible to the naked eye on Earth. Holmes' coma continued expanding until by mid-November of '07 it had become the largest object in the solar system, vastly larger than the Sun. The coma's diameter had grown from 28 thousand kilometers to 7 million km.

At the time of Holmes' extraordinary display, the comet was actually moving away from the Sun, and therefore cooling. Among the common sense questions posed by the enigma: how does such a gravitationally minuscule body hold in place a uniform, spherical coma 7 million kilometers in diameter? If Holmes' flare-up was the result of a collapse or explosion (as some scientists speculated) why was the ejected material not asymmetrical (as one would anticipate from an explosion)? Why did the claimed explosion not produce a variety of fragmentary sizes instead of the extremely fine dust that was actually observed? What explosive event could have caused the comet to luminate for MONTHS, rather than the SECONDS typical of an explosion's luminescence? Why did the comet's gaseous, dusty, spherical cloud persist for months, rather than dispersing quickly away from the comet?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/goodspeed.htm

LS: And where are you getting O- from, and how is it managing to locate and attach itself to not just one H+ but two?!

He wrote O-- I think the proposition is ionisation from the solar wind knocks a couple of electrons off an oxygen atom

LS: This is just silliness. Where are you getting the H+ from, even if this were possible?
Cosmic rays, as during solar minimums (mainly composed of protons-90%-, which, btw, we must remember are Hydrogen Nucleii), then these react with ozone to produce water 2H+…O3=H2O+O2.
There are 'charge exchange processes' which emit X rays. Also remember there are many chemicals available on the comet, see below...

Charge exchange processes in the form of electron transfer from neutral coma molecules to solar wind ions may also contribute to the ionization of the coma gas. There are two main processes: a neutral water molecule
in the coma may transfer one of its electrons to a solar wind major ion, H + , producing a neutral hydrogen atom and an H 2 O + ion, or a cometary neutral (not necessarily water) may transfer one of its electrons to a solar wind minor ion in a high charge state (e.g. O 5+ , O 6+ , C 5+ , C 6+ , N 7+ ). The latter process generally results in an ion in an excited state and for large enough initial charge states, the de-excitation results in the emission of X-rays that can be observed from Earth, thus providing a means of studying the cometary plasma
environment by remote sensing (Lisse et al., 2004).
An important property of the charge exchange process between cometary H 2 O molecules and solar wind H + ions is that the resulting neutral hydrogen keeps most of the energy that the fast solar wind H + ion had, while the H 2 O + ion added to the plasma remains about as slow as the its parent H 2 O molecule.

Following GaryN's link:
"Results. We find that ion acoustic waves are present in the plasma at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, where the major ion species is H2O+. The bulk of the ion distribution is cold, kBTi = 0.01 eV when the ion acoustic waves are observed. At times when the neutral density is high, ions are heated through acceleration by the solar wind electric field and scattered in collisions with the neutrals"

LS: The solar wind is nowhere to be seen when the comet is most active. Even if it were somehow in stealth mode and reaching the comet nucleus without being detected, you would be many orders of magnitude out to create the amount of H2O seen.

"Comets show large changes in their appearance as their distance from the Sun varies. Closer to the Sun, volatile materials on the comet nucleus start to sublimate, forming a neutral cloud that becomes partially ionized by solar UV radiation and charge exchange processes. When the comet activity evolves, the complexity of its interaction with the solar wind also changes. At large distances from the Sun the solar wind directly impacts the surface of an atmosphereless nucleus in an asteroid-like interaction, while at smaller heliospheric distances the solar wind permeates a thin, partially ionized, unstructured coma. When the comet activity is even higher (or the comet is closer to the Sun), the coma is much denser and plasma boundaries form, creating a cometary magnetosphere (Szegö et al. 2000, Sect. 4.1; Koenders et al. 2015).

LS: It is trivial to do the maths, but pointless, as the mechanism doesn't make any scientific sense, and we know where the water and other gases are coming from anyway. Quite where you got that idea I shudder to think! It wasn't a scientist, I will guarantee that!

Haha, LaSuisse, if you know with certainty where the the water and other gases are coming from, how can you explain realistically how all these compounds and chemicals that blacken the surface of 67P were formed out of ice, hydrogen and helium way out past the outer planets in deep primeval space?

Wouldn't it be more scientific to argue that on the ***evidence of all the organic matter found on 67P, that comets are ***more likely to have originated from impact events ***on the earth itself ***after life had formed, these impact-ejecta complete with organic matter being ejected into space, and then maybe being thrown into cometary orbits by gravity-assist mechanisms or other orbital close encounters? Haven't we got bits of Mars landing in Antarctica etc?
There have been about 20 known massive terrestrial impacts calculated to have happened in the last 60 or so mya, where the impactor was over 40km in diameter?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_i ... s_on_Earth

Another idea, what if comets were sent into orbit during hypervolcano explosions? Nobody alive today has witnessed a hypervolcano event, which is supposed to be caused by water, the transistion from compressed water in subterranean magma chambers that can make a super effective bomb... what if Lake Toba for instance, maybe blew some rocks and steam and other organic stuff right into space?
"So what is the difference between explosive and non-explosive eruptions? The difference is mainly due to the presence or absence of water."
Lake Toba explosive eruption:
"The eruption was large enough to have deposited an ash layer approximately 15 cm (5.9 in) thick over all of South Asia; at one site in central India, the Toba ash layer today is up to 6 m (20 ft) thick and parts of Malaysia were covered with 9 m (30 ft) of ash fall. In addition it has been variously calculated that 10,000 million tonnes (1.1×1010 short tons) of sulfurous acid or 6,000 million tonnes (6.6×109 short tons) of sulfur dioxide were ejected into the atmosphere by the event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Toba
So why is mainstream so stuck on Fred Whipple/s 1950's primordial dirty ice-cream comet hypothesis? :-)

All these are found on 67P according to ESA:
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Butane
Pentane
Hexane
Heptane
Alcohols:
Methanol
Ethanol
Propanol
Butanol
Pentanol
Sodium
Potassium
Silicon
Magnesium
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Benzoic Acid
Naphthalene
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Hydrogen Peroxide
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Dioxide
Hydrogen Fluoride
Hydrogen Chloride
Hydrogen Bromide
Phosphorus
Chloromethane
Glycine
Argon
Krypton
Xenon
Ammonia
Methylamine
Ethylamine
Hydrogen Sulphide
Carbonyl Sulphide
Sulphur Monoxide
Sulphur Dioxide
Carbon Disulphide
Formic Acid
Acetic Acid
Acetaldehyde
Ethylene Glycol
Propylene Glycol
Butanamide
Acetylene
Hydrogen Cyanide
Acetonitrile
Formaldehyde
Sulphur
Disulphur
Trisulphur
Tetrasulphur
Methanethiole
Ethanethiol
Thioformaldehyde
Cyanogen
.
Logically, then, this 67P comet is just a chunk of earth, blown into space when a huge impactor has hit the earth, or blown into space by that megahuge volcanic event in Sumatra, or some other uncommon but catastrophic event :-)
This link describes an event that might be something like the event that created comets:
"The impact with the earth's crust will finally stop the asteroid. The energy of the impact will vaporize the asteroid and a large amount of the Earth's crust, creating a crater more than one hundred kilometers across, throwing all that rock into the air. Some of this debris will be going so fast that it will fly right out of the Earth's atmosphere......On average, an asteroid this size strikes the Earth every 50 to 100 million years."

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... h-beginner
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:01 pm

sketch1946 wrote: LaSuisse1: And what is all this about electrical tensions? What on Earth is that?

"Voltage, electric potential difference, electric pressure or electric tension (formally denoted ∆V or ∆U, but more often simply as V or U, for instance in the context of Ohm's or Kirchhoff's laws) is the difference in electric potential energy between two points per unit electric charge."
"Each chemical species (for example, "water molecules", "sodium ions", "electrons", etc.) has an electrochemical potential (a quantity with units of energy) at any given point in space, which represents how easy or difficult it is to add more of that species to that location. If possible, a species will move from areas with higher electrochemical potential to areas with lower electrochemical potential..."
Clearing up some extremely common misunderstandings about invisible electric fields in space:

There is another type of invisible field besides magnetism. It is called the "electric field" or "electrostatic field" or "e-field." This second type of field is much like magnetism. It's invisible, it has lines of flux, and it can attract and repel objects. However, it is not magnetism, it is something separate. It is voltage.

Most people know about magnetic fields but not about e-fields or "voltage fields."

Generally, most people, even scientists, don't know about these invisible electric fields
What's the difference between voltage and an invisible electric field like that around 67P?
...and how can we 'see' invisible things like electric fields?

Besides not being found in elementary school science books, Voltage is also missing from our everyday language. If we have no common words to describe something, we tend to never talk about it. We have trouble even thinking about it, or believing it exists.


To be a bit more specific, Voltage is a way of using numbers to describe an electric field. Electric fields or "E-fields" are measured in volts over a distance; volts per centimeter for example. A stronger e-field has more volts per centimeter than a weaker one. Voltage and electric fields are basically the same thing: if e-fields are like the slope of a mountainside, then the volts are like the various heights of each different spot on the mountain. The slope of a mountainside can make a boulder start rolling. So can the differing heights of the different points on the mountain, it's just another way to describe the same thing. The e-field can be seen in terms of stacked layers of Equipotential Surfaces, or it can be seen as collections of flux lines. "Voltage" and "field-lines" are two ways to describe the same basic concept.

When you have e-fields, you have voltage. E-fields can exist in the air, and so can voltage. Whenever you have a high voltage across a short distance, then you have strong e-fields. Whenever an e-field is attracting or repelling an object, instead we could say that the object is being driven by the voltage in the space around the object.

Can an object have a certain voltage? No. Why not?

Well, please tell what my distance is. What is my distance? That's a ridiculous question, because I didn't tell you my distance FROM WHAT. Voltage is a bit like altitude; it is a measurement made BETWEEN two things. My altitude is 300ft above sea level, but simultaneously my altitude is also 1cm from the floor (since I'm not barefoot,) and it's also 93 million miles from the sun. My voltage might be -250 Volts in relation to the earth, but it also might be billions of volts when compared to the moon [or sun]. Volts are always measured along the flux lines of electric field, therefore voltage is always measured between two charged objects. If I start at the negative end of my flashlight battery, I can call that end "zero volts", and so the other end must be positive 1.5 volts. However, if I start at the POSITIVE end instead, then instead the positive battery terminal is zero volts, and the other terminal is negative 1.5 volts. Or, if I start half way between the battery terminals, then one terminal is -.75 volts, and the other terminal is +.75 volts. OK, what is the REAL voltage of the positive battery terminal? Is it actually zero, or actually +1.5, or is it +.75 volts? Nobody can say. The positive battery terminal can have several voltages at the same time. But this is no big deal, because neither can anyone tell you the battery's altitude! We can easily imagine the distance between two points, and we can also imagine the voltage between two points. But single objects don't "have" altitude, and single objects also don't "have" voltage.

You've probably heard of electromagnetic fields and electromagnetism. In the word "Electromagnetism," the term "electro" does not refer to electricity. Instead it refers... to voltage! Electromagnetism is the study of e-fields and magnetic fields: electro/magnetism. The charge flow (electric current) is intimately associated with magnetism, while the separated opposite charges are intimately associated with voltage. A flow of electromagnetic energy along a cable is composed half of electric current, and half of voltage. It is "voltagecurrent," it is electrostatic/magnetostatic, it's electro-magnetism. Electromagnetism is a two-sided coin, so what is voltage? It's one side of EM (the other side being magnetism.)

Besides not being found in elementary school science books, Voltage is also missing from our everyday language. If we have no common words to describe something, we tend to never talk about it. We have trouble even thinking about it, or believing it exists. For example, we have the word "magnetism", and most people have heard of magnetic fields. ELECTRIC fields exist too, but unfortunately "electri-cism" is not an English word. Everyone can discuss magnetism, but nobody ever talks about "electricism." Without the word "electricism," we have a tough time talking about electric fields, or about electric attraction/repulsion forces, and we tend not to realize that they are important in electric circuits. Yet there's a word we could use instead of "Electricizm." We don't have to coin some weird new term.

If magnetism is "that which involves magnetic fields", then what is "that which involves electric fields?"
Voltage!

Magnetic fields are invisible, and so is [the] voltage [field]. Both can be made visible. Iron filings let us see magnetic fields. To see voltage, suspend some metal or plastic fibers in oil, or sprinkle grass seeds on a pool of glycerine. If we then expose the oil to the strong voltage-field surrounding a charged object, the fibers or grass seeds will line up and show the shape of the field. Rub a balloon on your head, hold it near the suspended fibers, and you'll "see" the three-dimensional pattern; the lines of e-field flux.

You'll 'see' the visible lines of the electric or voltage field :-)
http://amasci.com/miscon/voltage.html
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sat Mar 25, 2017 8:02 pm

An electric charge alters the space around it. Throughout the space around every charge is a vector thing called the electric field. Also filling the space around every charge is a scalar thing, called the voltage or the electric potential.

Electric fields and voltages are two different ways to describe the same thing.

(Note on terminology: The text book uses the term "electric potential",
but it is easy to confuse electric potential with "potential energy",
which is something different.
So I will use the term "voltage" instead.)


The voltage at a point in empty space is a number (not a vector)
measured in units called volts(V) .

Near a positive charge, the voltage is high.

Far from a positive charge, the voltage is low.

Voltage is a kind of "electrical height".

Voltage is to charge like height is to mass. It takes a lot of energy to place a mass at a great height.

Likewise, it takes a lot of energy to place a positive charge at a place where the voltage is high.

Only changes in voltage ∆V between two different locations have physical significance.
The zero of voltage is arbitrary, in the same way that the zero of height is arbitrary.

The electric field is related to the voltage in this way: Electric field is the rate of change of voltage with position
Where there is a big E-field, the voltage varies rapidly with distance.

In order to understand these strange, abstract definitions of voltage, we must review work and potential energy ....

The [electric] field will push a test charge +q toward the negative plate with a constant force of magnitude...

imagine grabbing the charge with tweezers (an external agent) and pulling the charge +q a displacement ∆r against the electric field toward the positive plate

electric field is defined as the force per charge
the voltage difference ∆V as the change in PE per charge

It is hard to put a (+) charge near two other (+) charges. You have to push to get the +q in place
(to place a positive charge q between two like positive charges involves work, energy...
like tiddlywinks, the positive charge +q is going to either force the other two charges apart, or is going to pop off at a right angle to the line between the two other like charges....)
Equipotential (constant voltage) lines are always at right angles to the electric field

Notice that this formula gives V = 0 at r = ∞.
When dealing with point charges, we always set the zero of voltage at r = ∞

This is highly significant for Electric Universe concepts...
each charge in the universe is theoretically influenced by all the other charges in the universe,
right out to infinity :-)

This is talking about the electric field of the universe, not gravity, not magnetism, but electricity, the total E-field of the universe... duh, how did we miss that?

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys112 ... oltage.pdf

Think of the amount of mass required to generate a gravitational pressure needed to overcome the electromagnetic binding force between molecules inside the mass--the equilibrium occurs, basically, when an object in space becomes spherical. This happens at about 10^20 - 10^21kg. Divided by the mass of a proton implies you need about 10^47 atoms to generate the amount of gravitational pressure to break the electromagnetic strength between atoms. This should hopefully demonstrate to you why comparing gravity vs. electromagnetic forces between an electron or proton is not such an arbitrary method of determining the relative strength of the two forces.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/h ... le.660195/
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby LaSuisse1 » Sun Apr 02, 2017 4:43 pm

Oh dear, so much nonsense, so little time!
I'm not even going to bother with most of it. Simply to say, yet again, that the detection of ice is NOT anything to do with maths. It is to do with spectroscopy. Unless you want to throw 100+ years of lab tested data on that out. The models that show the distribution are obviously mathematically based. The detections are purely what is being detected in IR and sub-mm. They cannot be anything else.
It was solid ice ejected from Tempel 1 by the impact. It was a vast amount of solid ice detected at Hartley 2, being excavated by CO2 jets (cold, neutral, and not at all electrical). Maybe you think the images were also mathematical constructs?
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... tsnowstorm

And I have no idea where you are going with the magnetic field stuff. All that proves is that there is nothing electrical happening on the nucleus! I thought you wanted that? It is well known where the magnetic field in the coma comes from. The IMF. It was predicted theoretically long before it was detected. See Alfven's 1957 Tellus paper. The field hangs up around the nucleus, and piles up. Hence an increase in the magnetic field. This was seen at Halley in 1986, and also at 67P. Within that piled up field is a diamagnetic cavity. That is, there is zero magnetic field within it (i.e. no electrical activity either). The solar wind isn't penetrating it, and neither is the IMF. As measured. At Halley this was at ~4500 km. At 67P, a few hundred.
This is why it should be obvious that the silly idea of the solar wind creating water is laughable. It isn't reaching the nucleus for long periods. It is travelling too quickly (i.e. the H+ is too energetic to combine with anything). There isn't enough of it by orders of magnitude. There is little, if any O- to combine with even if it were possible. Which it isn't. And the H2O at 67P has a very different D/H ratio to the solar wind. Need I go on? Solar wind = water = dumb idea. It is obvious where the ice and H2O (and other) vapour comes from; the place where it has been detected numerous times; the nucleus.
I think I'll give up on this place. I'm not sure what you believe in. However, that is what it seems to be; a belief system. It bears no resemblance to actual science.
LaSuisse1
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:37 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:42 pm

Hi LaSuisse1,
LaSuisse1 wrote:The field hangs up around the nucleus, and piles up. Hence an increase in the magnetic field. This was seen at Halley in 1986, and also at 67P. Within that piled up field is a diamagnetic cavity. That is, there is zero magnetic field within it (i.e. no electrical activity either).

mmm, I'm still learning about different behaviours of magnetic and electrical fields in space, but I haven't come across that one before... do you have a link to a paper? :-)
LaSuisse1 wrote:The detections are purely what is being detected...

mmm another good one :-)
it's the interpretations that are sometimes difficult I believe, but that's what real science is about? It is a truly amazing feat to get these instruments up there in a hostile environment, where even the electric potential of the spacecraft can mess with measurements, you understand about floating grounds and convection currents and the problems with deep dialectric charging and so on?
LaSuisse1 wrote:And I have no idea where you are going with the magnetic field stuff. All that proves is that there is nothing electrical happening on the nucleus! I thought you wanted that? It is well known where the magnetic field in the coma comes from.

Have you read about how magnetic fields are propagated inside flux tubes? It's fascinating, but a bit hard to get your head around the geometry, you know, Parker Current Sheets? Two way contained plasma accelerations, and garden sprinklers etc...?
LaSuisse1 wrote:It is obvious where the ice and H2O (and other) vapour comes from; the place where it has been detected numerous times; the nucleus.

Does Rosetta measure water directly? No, the instruments measure OI and OH and infer water by mathematical modeling:

The Wide Angle Camera of the OSIRIS instrument on board the Rosetta spacecraft is equipped with several narrowband filters that are centered on the emission lines and bands of various fragment species.
These are used to determine the evolution of the production and spatial distribution of the gas in the inner coma of comet 67P with time and heliocentric distance, here between 2.6 – 1.3 AU pre-perihelion.

Are OI and OH the only things measured? Are the emissions produced by photonic emission or by particle bombardment?
Our observations indicate that the emission observed in the OH, OI, CN, NH, and NH2 filters is
mostly produced by dissociative electron impact excitation of different parent species.
We conclude that CO2 rather than H2O is a significant source of the [OI] 630 nm emission.
A strong plume-like feature observed in the CN and [OI] filters is present throughout our observations.

So some of the molecules in the coma are not produced by water:
This plume is not present in OH emission and indicates a local enhancement [or source?] of the CO2/H2O ratio by as much as a factor of 3.

Is maths involved in the collection of data?
All images are pre-processed using the standard OSIRIS pipeline (Tubiana et al.2015),
which includes bias and dark subtraction, flat fielding, conversion from electron yield to radiance units
(W m−2 sr−1nm−1), and bad-pixel masking.

Data are collected using predesigned filters, data are contaminated at collection:
The narrowband filters were designed to sample either emission lines and bands of ***specific gases or continuum light at nearby wavelengths, but ***inevitably also sample the emission of ***other molecules with lines that fall within the narrowband filters’ passbands

Water is not measured directly, and OI is shown later to possibly come from another source:
The WAC can map the distribution of water with its OI and OH filters.

OI and OH filters are used to estimate 'parent' water molecules:
The OI filter covers the forbidden transitions from the OI (2p4) 1D state to the ground state.
The OI (2p4) 1D state is populated directly by photodissociation [we assume :-)] of H2O molecules,
as is the OI (2p4) 1S state, which relaxes mostly (95%) by decay into the 1D state (c.f.Cochran 2008).

The OH filter covers the (0-0) band of the A2Σ+ –X2Π transition of OH, centered at about 308.5 nm

Some filters are so 'contaminated' that they are not used:
While the WAC is equipped with CS and Na filters, those two filters were used only sporadically during the first half of the mission because the low SNR [Signal to Noise Ratio, ie too much 'noise']
and pinholes (CS) and contamination by C2 emission.

(Na)[Sodium] hampers the interpretation of observations made with these two filters.
I thought we were measuring a snowball, must be a saltwater snowball?

The WAC is also equipped with several filters that can sample the continuum.

More 'contamination':
Comparing the 375nm and 610nm narrowband filters illustrates the level of contamination of
the latter filter by gas emission features...

What molecules are detected in the OI filter, more water?
No, up to ***half of emissions in the OI filter come from something else:
This suggests that in the January/March data, up to 50% of the flux in the 610 nm filter [OI]**might come from gaseous emission, **probably **mostly due to the emission from the NH2 Ã2A1 àX 2B1(0,9,0) and C2d3Πg –a3Πu(Δv = -2) transitions

Measurements are contaminated by 'cosmic ray' particles:
The signal-to-noise ratio in the OH and NH filters is poor because UV fluxes from solar analogs are low [not enough light to take a picture :-)] and the CCD’s quantum efficiency drops significantly below 400 nm (Magrin et al. 2015). In addition, the long exposures required in these filters increases the chance of cosmic rays affecting the measurement, reducing the number of useable images.

Systematic error, contamination, equipment designed to detect specific wavelengths, and the overlapping signal from other molecules contribute to 'uncertainties':
The continuum removal is the largest systematic and statistical uncertainty in our data analysis.
For example, in the data acquired in March, at a distance of 100 pixels, i.e., 0.82km, from the nucleus, the continuum [overlapping wavelengths from all the combined molecules] contributes 10% to the total signal in CN, ~20% in OI, ~30% in OH, and as much as 65% of the signal in the NH2 filter.

Isn't it funny how you can just assume they simply measured all the ***water 'outgassing' from the comet?
There are numerous inconsistencies in our results if we assume standard cometary physics.

water production rates ***derived from the OH observations using the standard Haser model
are initially more than a factor 300 larger then expected.

Do these ions really come from water? Apparently not:
Second, with the WAC we expect to observe two water photolysis products, OH and OI.
Using the standard Haser model, water production rates derived from OH seem
consistently larger than those derived from [OI], by a factor of 6 in January and by a factor
of 30 in July. This situation is not resolved by our appended coma model because both there is no change in the relative column densities of OH and OI if both are assumed to come from H2O.

We therefore conclude that something is wrong with the expected physics here, can't even be fixed by changing the mathematical model:
We therefore conclude that by ***adjusting our models to better describe the physical processes in the inner coma we can explain ***some of the observations,
but that the differences between our observations and model results indicate that photodissociation and fluorescence are **not the dominant processes resulting in the OH, [OI], CN, and NH emission observed in the inner coma.

The supposed disassociation products that were presumed to come from water, most likely come from other sources:
As concluded above, the emission from [OI] and OH cannot be explained by photodissociation of H2O, followed by prompt emission of [OI] or by fluorescence of OH.
The surface brightness profile of OH suggests its emission might be the product of a process that produces OH directly in the A2Σ+ state.

However, the difference between the [OI] and OH morphology indicates that at least part of the emission of the two fragments is **not related.


The OI comes from another process that directly produces oxygen in an excited state:
From the morphology of the [OI] emission we concluded that it is the product of a process that directly produces atomic oxygen in an excited state.
Like H2O, photodissociation of CO2 and CO produces OI in the 1D and 1S states, resulting in [OI] emission at 630 nm.

The oxygen comes from another source than water:
If the main emission in the plume originated from electron impact dissociation of H2O, it should also be present in OH emission. If electron impact dissociation drives the emission of [OI] and OH in the coma, then the atomic oxygen emission in the plume is probably produced from a molecule other than H2O.

In summary, photons aren't up to the job:
The observations in all filters at all epochs indicated surface brightnesses that are one or more orders of magnitude higher than can be explained by photodissociation. Instead, the emission is likely the result of dissociative electron impact excitation, ***and/or different species.[ie not water]

"CHANGES IN THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE INNER COMA OF 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO WITH DECREASING HELIOCENTRIC DISTANCE" D.BODEWITS et.al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.05632.pdf
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests