Are they saying water when they mean OH radical? Please help

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Are they saying water when they mean OH radical? Please help

Unread postby gocrew » Tue Aug 19, 2014 8:50 am

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space ... r_a_second

I am trying to convert some orthodox philistines. Is Rosetta really displaying a never-before-observed amount of actual H2O? Or are they assuming it's coming from H20 when in reality, it's just more OH radicals?
gocrew
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:42 pm

Re: Are they saying water when they mean OH radical? Please

Unread postby Frantic » Tue Aug 19, 2014 3:04 pm

Why does a comet "sweat" in cold interstellar space? Flexing its muscles I assume.

I didn't see anything in the article explaining what they detected except they are using MIRO which is a microwave instrument. This can detect chemicals and temperatures, but on the composition, I do not know the accuracy.
Frantic
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49 am

Re: Are they saying water when they mean OH radical? Please

Unread postby gocrew » Tue Aug 19, 2014 5:32 pm

"Why does a comet "sweat" in cold interstellar space?"

Yeah, I brought this point up too. The comet is well outside the orbit of Mars - closer to Jupiter's than Mars's - so there should be no sublimating going on.

But I also made the claim that these reports of water always turn out to be OH rather than H2O and we just assume the OH is coming from H2O (Bonev, B.P., Mumma, M.J., Dello Russo, N., et al... Infrared OH Prompt Emission as a Proxy of Water Production in Comets The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 615, Iss. 2, pp. 1048 – 1053, 2004).

But I would love to find something that actually shows they are finding next to no H2O and merely seeing OH which they sloppily refer to as water.
gocrew
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:42 pm

Re: Are they saying water when they mean OH radical? Please

Unread postby nick c » Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:27 pm

In the past the presence of the hydroxyl radical has been interpreted as water, so I would assume that they are doing the same in this case.
Perhaps someone could email one of the project officials for a definitive answer:
For more information, please contact:

Markus Bauer

ESA Science and Robotic Exploration Communication Officer

Tel: +31 71 565 6799

Mob: +31 61 594 3 954

Email: markus.bauer@esa.int

Matt Taylor

ESA Rosetta project scientist

Email: matthew.taylor@esa.int

D.C. Agle
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, USA
Tel +1 818 393 9011
Email: agle@jpl.nasa.gov

Dwayne Brown
Headquarters, Washington DC, USA
Tel: +1 202 358 1726
Email: dwayne.c.brown@nasa.gov


Here is an interesting NASA article in which it is conceded that the presence of the hydroxyl radical in the coma does not necessarily imply the existence of water on comets.
14.6. INFERENCES ON THE NATURE OF COMETS FROM EMISSION CHARACTERISTICS

The assumption of ices as important bonding materials in cometary nuclei rests in almost all cases on indirect evidence, specifically the observation of atomic hydrogen (Lyman [Greek letter] alpha emission) and hydroxyl radical in a vast cloud surrounding the comet, in some cases accompanied by observation of H20+ or neutral water molecules. In addition, CH3CN, HCN, and corresponding radicals and ions are common constituents of the cometary gas envelope. These observations can be rationalized by assuming (Delsemme, 1972; Mendis, 1973) that the cometary nuclei consist of loose agglomerates containing, in addition to silicates (observed by infrared spectrometry (Maas et al., 1970)) and also water ice with inclusions of volatile carbon and nitrogen compounds.

It has been suggested by Lal (1972b) that the Lyman a emission could be caused by solar wind hydrogen, thermalized on the particles in the dust cloud surrounding the comet. Experiments by Arrhenius and Andersen (1973) irradiating calcium aluminosilicate (anorthite) surfaces with protons in the 10-keV range resulted in a substantial (~10 percent) yield of hydroxyl ion and also hydroxyl ion complexes such as CaOH.

Observations on the lunar surface (Hapke et al., 1970; Epstein and Taylor, 1970, 1972) also demonstrate that such proton-assisted abstraction of oxygen (preferentially O16) from silicates is an active process in space, resulting in a flux of OH and related species. In cometary particle streams, new silicate surfaces would relatively frequently be exposed by fracture and fusion at grain collision. The production of hydroxyl radicals and ions would in this case not be rate-limited by surface saturation to the same extent as on the Moon(for lunar soil turnover rate, see Arrhenius et al. (1972)).

These observations, although not negating the possible occurrence of water ice in cometary nuclei, point also to refractory sources of the actually observed hydrogen and hydroxyl. Solar protons as well as the products of their reaction with silicate oxygen would interact with any solid carbon and nitrogen compounds characteristic of carbonaceous chondrites to yield volatile carbon and nitrogen radicals such as observed in comets. Phenomena such as "flares," "breakups," "high-velocity jets," and nongravitational [236] acceleration are all phenomena that fit well into a theory ascribing them to the evaporation of frozen volatiles. However, with different semantic labels the underlying observations would also seem to be interpretable as manifestations of the focusing and dispersion processes in the cometary region of the meteor stream, accompanied by solar wind interaction.

highlight added

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch14.htm
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Are they saying water when they mean OH radical? Please

Unread postby viscount aero » Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:20 am

To answer the original question, it is OH- radicals they are detecting yesteday, today, and tomorrow. That is all they have detected for the past 27 years starting with Comet Halley. There is no actual water.

To add, Nick, though you have highlighted the region that you did in your above post (which is of great importance), the last paragraph, in my opinion, is even more telling. What they are saying--albeit very tacitly and vaguely--is nearly exactly what the "Electric Comet" documentary explains (in far greater detail) as the comet interacts with the solar wind.

Read the bold part below. They are admitting in plain sight a giant thing--yet remain semantically vague-ish and not quite so specific as to avoid the tendency to actually rule out comets being dry and reactive bodies within the solar plasma. They blatantly word it this way: "...of the actually observed hydrogen and hydroxyl..."

"...of the actually observed hydrogen and hydroxyl"
In other words, there is NO water ever detected. Not ever. Yet virtually all press releases for nearly 30 years have not only implied the existence of water, but have outright demanded that the public believe that comets are typically going to "gush" water out. That and that comets are icy and snowy. Yet all of this is completely false :lol:

In other words, they've already admitted long ago that there is no actual water even though they have told the public--as fact--that the "main event" for a comet is water.

What's more, they even went so far as to seriously hypothesize that Earth's oceans were seeded by trillions of cometary impacts! National Geographic or NOVA even made a documentary about this! :lol: :lol: :roll:

Skip to about 22:00 in the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj5frIk4PbY

nick c wrote:14.6. INFERENCES ON THE NATURE OF COMETS FROM EMISSION CHARACTERISTICS

The assumption of ices as important bonding materials in cometary nuclei rests in almost all cases on indirect evidence, specifically the observation of atomic hydrogen (Lyman [Greek letter] alpha emission) and hydroxyl radical in a vast cloud surrounding the comet, in some cases accompanied by observation of H20+ or neutral water molecules. In addition, CH3CN, HCN, and corresponding radicals and ions are common constituents of the cometary gas envelope. These observations can be rationalized by assuming (Delsemme, 1972; Mendis, 1973) that the cometary nuclei consist of loose agglomerates containing, in addition to silicates (observed by infrared spectrometry (Maas et al., 1970)) and also water ice with inclusions of volatile carbon and nitrogen compounds.

It has been suggested by Lal (1972b) that the Lyman a emission could be caused by solar wind hydrogen, thermalized on the particles in the dust cloud surrounding the comet. Experiments by Arrhenius and Andersen (1973) irradiating calcium aluminosilicate (anorthite) surfaces with protons in the 10-keV range resulted in a substantial (~10 percent) yield of hydroxyl ion and also hydroxyl ion complexes such as CaOH.

Observations on the lunar surface (Hapke et al., 1970; Epstein and Taylor, 1970, 1972) also demonstrate that such proton-assisted abstraction of oxygen (preferentially O16) from silicates is an active process in space, resulting in a flux of OH and related species. In cometary particle streams, new silicate surfaces would relatively frequently be exposed by fracture and fusion at grain collision. The production of hydroxyl radicals and ions would in this case not be rate-limited by surface saturation to the same extent as on the Moon(for lunar soil turnover rate, see Arrhenius et al. (1972)).

These observations, although not negating the possible occurrence of water ice in cometary nuclei, point also to refractory sources of the actually observed hydrogen and hydroxyl. Solar protons as well as the products of their reaction with silicate oxygen would interact with any solid carbon and nitrogen compounds characteristic of carbonaceous chondrites to yield volatile carbon and nitrogen radicals such as observed in comets. Phenomena such as "flares," "breakups," "high-velocity jets," and nongravitational [236] acceleration are all phenomena that fit well into a theory ascribing them to the evaporation of frozen volatiles. However, with different semantic labels the underlying observations would also seem to be interpretable as manifestations of the focusing and dispersion processes in the cometary region of the meteor stream, accompanied by solar wind interaction.


Read this again very carefully even though they are using typically evasive "sci speak":

"However, with different semantic labels the underlying observations would also seem to be interpretable as manifestations of the focusing and dispersion processes in the cometary region of the meteor stream, accompanied by solar wind interaction."
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Are they saying water when they mean OH radical? Please

Unread postby Metryq » Wed Aug 20, 2014 3:56 am

User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Are they saying water when they mean OH radical? Please

Unread postby gocrew » Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:05 pm

It looks like they are actually detecting H2O.

http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/35061-instru ... ongid=1641

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/06/23 ... om-67pc-g/

http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/35061-instru ... ongid=1650

This doesn't mean the comet is a dirty snowball, of course. My bet is it's being electrochemically produced. But this does seem to be one case where they are actually seeing H2O, not just OH.
gocrew
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:42 pm

Re: Are they saying water when they mean OH radical? Please

Unread postby viscount aero » Wed Aug 20, 2014 5:19 pm

You must learn to read between the lies of omission.

gocrew wrote:It looks like they are actually detecting H2O.

http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/35061-instru ... ongid=1641

^^^That article only says "Four key volatile species - H2O, CO, CH3OH, and NH3 and the isotopes H217O and H218O - are pre-programmed for observation." That could mean anything considering they have always said in press releases that their instruments detected gushing amounts of water.

But what they detected was only OH-.

Also, isotopes H217O and H218O are species of water and not hydroxyls which are the only things ever detected at comets as "water".

gocrew wrote:http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/06/23/first-detection-of-water-from-67pc-g/

^^^That article only states: "This first estimate of the water production rate is within the range of models being used for comet 67P/C-G, and is excellent confirmation that MIRO is on target with its science goals."

This is the lie of omission part of the press release.

gocrew wrote:http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/35061-instruments/?fbodylongid=1650

^^^That article doesn't mention anything about water.

gocrew wrote:This doesn't mean the comet is a dirty snowball, of course. My bet is it's being electrochemically produced. But this does seem to be one case where they are actually seeing H2O, not just OH.


Is it?

Press releases over nearly 3 decades have all said the same thing about detection of water vapor. What were they really saying?

If H20 has actually been detected then that could still be synthesized outside of the comet as it is probably done at Enceladus.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Are they saying water when they mean OH radical? Please

Unread postby gocrew » Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:08 am

Great post, viscount aero! Thanks!
gocrew
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:42 pm

Re: Are they saying water when they mean OH radical? Please

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:51 pm

gocrew wrote:Great post, viscount aero! Thanks!


My pleasure indeed :ugeek: 8-)
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Are they saying water when they mean OH radical? Please

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:18 am

The solar wind interacting with the rock creates the water;

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/5/1732

Abstract wrote:The solar wind (SW), composed of predominantly ∼1-keV H+ ions, produces amorphous rims up to ∼150 nm thick on the surfaces of minerals exposed in space. Silicates with amorphous rims are observed on interplanetary dust particles and on lunar and asteroid soil regolith grains. Implanted H+ may react with oxygen in the minerals to form trace amounts of hydroxyl (−OH) and/or water (H2O). Previous studies have detected hydroxyl in lunar soils, but its chemical state, physical location in the soils, and source(s) are debated. If −OH or H2O is generated in rims on silicate grains, there are important implications for the origins of water in the solar system and other astrophysical environments. By exploiting the high spatial resolution of transmission electron microscopy and valence electron energy-loss spectroscopy, we detect water sealed in vesicles within amorphous rims produced by SW irradiation of silicate mineral grains on the exterior surfaces of interplanetary dust particles. Our findings establish that water is a byproduct of SW space weathering. We conclude, on the basis of the pervasiveness of the SW and silicate materials, that the production of radiolytic SW water on airless bodies is a ubiquitous process throughout the solar system.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are they saying water when they mean OH radical? Please

Unread postby Biggins » Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:39 am

To answer the original poster, when Rosetta say water, they mean H20. Having looked at other information supplied, the spectral line that they are looking at is for H20 only, not any other molecule or atom.
I checked and can confirm it is water :)
Biggins
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:28 am
Location: Germany

Re: Are they saying water when they mean OH radical? Please

Unread postby viscount aero » Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:48 am

Biggins wrote:To answer the original poster, when Rosetta say water, they mean H20. Having looked at other information supplied, the spectral line that they are looking at is for H20 only, not any other molecule or atom.
I checked and can confirm it is water :)


Yes but as stated earlier, even if it is literally H20 that is most likely created outside of the cometary body. There is more than likely no subsurface liquid ocean in any cometary body. Yet cometary scientists are blind to this.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Are they saying water when they mean OH radical? Please

Unread postby nick c » Fri Aug 22, 2014 1:31 pm

The NASA paper that to which I linked earlier in the thread does mention that some H2O is found in comet comas.
The assumption of ices as important bonding materials in cometary nuclei rests in almost all cases on indirect evidence, specifically the observation of atomic hydrogen (Lyman [Greek letter] alpha emission) and hydroxyl radical in a vast cloud surrounding the comet, in some cases accompanied by observation of H20+ or neutral water molecules. In addition, CH3CN, HCN, and corresponding radicals and ions are common constituents of the cometary gas envelope.


highlight added

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch14.htm

But the writers of the article did not seem to think that this was evidence (not enough?) to account for the conventional dirty snowball model.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Are they saying water when they mean OH radical? Please

Unread postby viscount aero » Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:01 pm

The most damning evidence already gathered years ago was the Tempel 1 impactor that sought to excavate the coma's regolith--revealing only dryness, scant ice, and very little water. That's very problematic for a model dependent on a majority or large proportion of ices and snows to exist. So needy is the theory that these things are made to exist in press release wording. Press releases are all worded, for the most part, to be read and construed as comets being bastions of water and carriers of the "genetic blueprint" of our very origins--hence the presumptuous title "Rosetta."

Rosetta is, ironically, going to be a Rosetta Stone but not the one they have presumed it to be. It will reveal nothing of what they have alleged for 30 years or more--since Carl Sagan began to popularize the "ices and snows" mythos that the consumer culture gullibly swallowed about comets.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California


Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests