Electric Comets

[Zyxzevn]

Water ice under Philae!
The PP experiment used a number of electrodes to transmit alternating current through the comet surface and was able to detect that there is a large quantity of water ice under Philae.

More reading about the PP experiment shows that it just measures the electric conductivity between two points,
using alternating current. Not what the actual material is. There are many alternatives.
The experiment, if done correctly, may exclude some materials, even water.
Did they find a release of H² and O² in the material at certain voltages? And how much?
That would be interesting. There may be a little water, due to the solor wind.

Did the electric waves show echos in the material? Is that what they measured?
It may indicate a solid structure underneath the dust, which could be anything, but is not ice.
The whole body is clearly too light for ice (ice=0.9 g/cm³).
Which means that, if they found a solid body, that there is no ice.

[seasmith]

~
Leo Vuyk linked:

"The Philae lander came into contact with a soft layer several centimetres thick. Then, just milliseconds later, the feet encountered a hard, perhaps icy layer on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko," explains DLR researcher Klaus Seidensticker, who is responsible for the Surface Electric Sounding and Acoustic Monitoring Experiment (SESAME), which includes CASSE. [20 Nov 2014]
or
Klaus Seidensticker from the DLR Institute of Planetary Research says: “Our data record the first touchdown and show that Philae’s feet first penetrated a soft surface layer – possibly a dust layer – several centimetres thick until they hit a hard surface – probably a sintered ice-dust layer – a few milliseconds later.”

CASSE also detected vibrations as the MUPUS instrument attempted to hammer a probe deep into the hard surface material

http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault ... lery/17248


These brief 'soundings' seem a bit like the extrapolations of solar seismology and cosmic redshift, s i.e. trying to match squiggles found on earth, with wiggles detected from space. Maybe yes, maybe no.

The PP experiment used a number of electrodes to transmit alternating current through the comet surface and was able to detect that there is a large quantity of water ice under Philae.

Maybe that's true, or maybe it's deep-space frozen version H2O, like the water found in the many, many rocks containing hydroxyl groups.
(with some "sintered" ice)


All Rocks Contain Water

http://www.mnh.si.edu/earth/text/3_1_2_4.html

[leo vuyk]

Thank you gentlemen for this lively discussion, we may hope that the ESA scientists will come up with more clairity in the next days.

[Frantic]

All Rocks Contain Water

http://www.mnh.si.edu/earth/text/3_1_2_4.html

Chicken and the egg. They are trying to prove the origin of water. If rock from a planet containing water is launched into space as a comet, that does not make the comet the source of water. Additionally any aqueous rock would be far too dense to be the composition of the comet.

[scowie]

I would suggest that people take this 0.5 density calculation with a pinch of salt (don't worry, it won't melt the ice!). I reckon the mainstream belief that solar system bodies have no net charge results in underestimations of masses and densities. See my post: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15412

[seasmith]

Frfrantic wrote:
They are trying to prove the origin of water. If rock from a planet containing water is launched into space as a comet, that does not make the comet the source of water.

???


Well yes, and that is what the Smithsonian geology site is inferring, i.e. Water comes from planetary processes, not from comets.

As for "densities", read the comments on the range of densities possible for "conglomerates" above,
and Scowie's cogent post (and thread) there, as well.

The Smithsonian Museum is probably Not part of a giant conspiracy to promulgate barakebola and grimy snowballs...

[Frantic]

Frfrantic wrote:
They are trying to prove the origin of water. If rock from a planet containing water is launched into space as a comet, that does not make the comet the source of water.

???


Well yes, and that is what the Smithsonian geology site is inferring, i.e. Water comes from planetary processes, not from comets.

I am referring to the Fred Whipple theory and its proponents not the smithsonian. Are you talking about planetary disc formation of planetismals of the oort cloud, or are you referring to the metamorphic process, exothermic serpentinite reactions, where in water is absorbed into rock, which obviously still requires an origin for the water? I can only think you misinterpreted something I said somewhere.

Smithsonian, barakebola, grimey snowballs, 911, global warming, sthu

As for "densities", read the comments on the range of densities possible for "conglomerates" above,
and Scowie's cogent post (and thread) there, as well.

The Smithsonian Museum is probably Not part of a giant conspiracy to promulgate barakebola and grimy snowballs...

??? Who said anything about the Smithsonian. I am just saying, the theory that comets brought water to the planets is not proven if the comet were to be an aqueous rock. If the theory is aqueous rock is uplifted from one planet and transferred to another I did not understand the comet theory correctly, seems much more reasonable. Previously, I have only heard tale of a place far far away, the oort cloud full of Icey Planetesimals.

[seasmith]

Frantic » Thu Nov 20, 2014 5:43 pm

All Rocks Contain Water

http://www.mnh.si.edu/earth/text/3_1_2_4.html

Frantic wrote:

seasmith wrote:
As for "densities", read the comments on the range of densities possible for "conglomerates" above,
and Scowie's cogent post (and thread) there, as well.

The Smithsonian Museum is probably Not part of a giant conspiracy to promulgate barakebola and grimy snowballs...

??? Who said anything about the Smithsonian.

My apologies for any mis-understanding
s

[scowie]

It seems to me that the belief that 67P has a low density may have lead to the belief that there is water present. Lower density structures like foam have lower permittivities than solids of the same material. Water has high permittivity. They obviously measured a higher permittivity than what you'd get with foam-like/rubble-like rock with vacuum in the gaps. Hence they conclude that there must be some water present to raise up the permittivity.

So, since their density calculation is probably wrong, I'd recommend taking any claims of any amount of water having been detected with a pinch of salt too

[kiwi]

They obviously measured a higher permittivity than what you'd get with foam-like/rubble-like rock with vacuum in the gaps.

That wou;d require a far higher sampling rate from all over/in the object

[Dotini]

It seems to me that the belief that 67P has a low density may have lead to the belief that there is water present. Lower density structures like foam have lower permittivities than solids of the same material. Water has high permittivity. They obviously measured a higher permittivity than what you'd get with foam-like/rubble-like rock with vacuum in the gaps. Hence they conclude that there must be some water present to raise up the permittivity.

So, since their density calculation is probably wrong, I'd recommend taking any claims of any amount of water having been detected with a pinch of salt too

I tried to find out how comet density is determined. I did not get very far, so maybe you guys can help me do some research. It seems density is an estimate based on mass and volume. But how is mass measured? My feeble efforts seemed to find that water production in the coma is a factor in estimates of mass. But water production depends on distance to the sun (perihelion) as well as where the water is coming from. Does water reside on or in the comet, and/or is water produced as an electrochemical reaction from silicates in the solar wind? There may be a certain amount of circular reasoning in density estimates. But I am unsure. Please help to nail down exactly how comet densities are estimated.

[scowie]

That wou;d require a far higher sampling rate from all over/in the object

The pp experiment is supposed to measure permittivity up to 2 meters down: http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/ ... 14-453.pdf

I tried to find out how comet density is determined. I did not get very far, so maybe you guys can help me do some research. It seems density is an estimate based on mass and volume. But how is mass measured? My feeble efforts seemed to find that water production in the coma is a factor in estimates of mass. But water production depends on distance to the sun (perihelion) as well as where the water is coming from. Does water reside on or in the comet, and/or is water produced as an electrochemical reaction from silicates in the solar wind? There may be a certain amount of circular reasoning in density estimates. But I am unsure. Please help to nail down exactly how comet densities are estimated.

I'm sure that in the case of 67P, it will be from the orbit of the Rosetta probe around the comet. They assume that gravity alone is responsible for it's orbit and then infer a mass from that, and a density from it's volume. Of course, they'd need to have another method for comets/asteroids/dwarf planets that have not been visited. A bit of googling suggests that volatile retention models are one method of dong this (and they seem rather subjective): http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.1041
I imagine an unaccounted for net electric charge would effect those measurements too.

[viscount aero]

They obviously measured a higher permittivity than what you'd get with foam-like/rubble-like rock with vacuum in the gaps.

That wou;d require a far higher sampling rate from all over/in the object

That is a great point in general.

[viscount aero]

... Does water reside on or in the comet, and/or is water produced as an electrochemical reaction from silicates in the solar wind? There may be a certain amount of circular reasoning in density estimates. But I am unsure. Please help to nail down exactly how comet densities are estimated.

See bolded highlight above. In my opinion it is a photochemical/electrochemical reaction as the comet enters a region of higher electrical potential. This can occur far away from the Sun, too, as has been recorded on other comets and asteroids. But that focus is being kept away from the arena of public discussion. Therefore the mechanism cannot solely be UV but is radiation in general. Asteroids that develop tails and comets that flare up billions of miles from the Sun falsify ESA's theory of outgassing. Sublimation is not the process.

[seasmith]

viscount aero wrote: »

Dotini wrote:
... Does water reside on or in the comet, and/or is water produced as an electrochemical reaction from silicates in the solar wind? There may be a certain amount of circular reasoning in density estimates. But I am unsure. Please help to nail down exactly how comet densities are estimated.

In my opinion it is a photochemical/electrochemical reaction as the comet enters a region of higher electrical potential. This can occur far away from the Sun, too, as has been recorded on other comets and asteroids.

Actually the "water" or hydroxyl ions, are not the prime components in a cometary Coma.
Practically all of the component molecules of the comet body are electrically broken down and disassociated into ions and cations.
(and with every atom for disposal, there can be prodigious output)

It took lots of heat, pressure and gravity to originally coalesce ionic plasmas into planetary rock and debris,
and now with a dire dearth of all three conditions, a comet will disassociate back into plasmic ions,
(as it ''hums' magneticly.)



What Wal Thornhill calls:

The far more energetic [than radiation-only erosion] molecular and atomic reactions due to plasma discharge sputtering of an electrically charged comet nucleus...
{The comas of O and OH are far less extensive than the H coma but have comparable density.}

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/first-evi ... s-it-mean/


somewhat like a slow-motion fission A-bomb