(The Explosive Demise of Comet Linear)The “puzzling” absence of small (house-sized) comets may be explained in equally simple terms electrically. Such small objects would readily lose their charge before reaching the inner solar system. But a comet nucleus kilometers in diameter presents a much different electrical profile and its charge could not be dissipated so quickly.
(Comet Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 Disintegrates)A comet nucleus can be compared to the insulating material in a capacitor. As charge is exchanged from the comet’s surface to the solar wind, electrical energy is stored in the nucleus in the form of charge polarization. This can easily build up intense mechanical stress in the comet nucleus, which may be released catastrophically, as in a capacitor when its insulation suffers rapid breakdown. The comet will explode!
(Comet Schwassman-Wachmann 3 Disintegrates [2])A capacitor, one of the most commonly used devices in electrical engineering, stores electrical charge between layers of insulating material. And that is what a comet moving through regions of different charge will do—it will store electric charge. A comet nucleus can be compared to the insulating material, the dielectric, in a capacitor. As charge is exchanged from the comet’s surface to the solar "wind" (actually an electrically active plasma), electrical energy is stored in the nucleus in the form of charge polarization. This can easily build up intense mechanical stress in the comet nucleus, which may be released catastrophically. And just as a capacitor can explode when its insulation suffers rapid breakdown, a comet can do precisely the same.
Although it doesn't pertain specifically to comets, the note by Thornhill about electric stars seems applicable:The most noticeable thing is that the comet fragments do not "light up" until they are a considerable distance from the comet nucleus. This is contrary to the argument that the cometary display is due to exposed ices sublimating in sunlight. We should then expect that the fragments would expose fresh ices and appear bright from the moment they leave the nucleus. In contrast, the electrical model expects the fragments to be at the same voltage as the parent nucleus, so that they will not begin to discharge and form their own cometary display until they leave the immediate electrical influence of the parent. In addition, the brightness of each fragment will vary as it moves in and out of the current filaments from the parent comet and other fragments. And it will fade as the charge on the fragment is dissipated.
My line of thought is that a similar process and result happens with comets / fragments, as noted in the opening of the post.Electric stars are not nuclear furnaces! They shine because they remain embedded in the galactic power grid. The decay of the z-pinch exposes the newborn star to a new electrical environment. The critical factor in the star’s stability is the current density at its photosphere. If it is excessive, the star may electrically “fission” into two or more pieces in order to expose a greater surface area and reduce the current density to a manageable level.
Maybe there is some more information you might find to be going into your direction of questioning in the Comet Holmes thread?JohnMT wrote:Its all very well to suggest that Asteroid 2003 EH may have inadvertantly in the past encountered a Birkeland filament, which gave this object cometary virtues etc, but it does not explain why the object PRESENTLY is not behaving as a comet.
Surely, even at its present distance, even a slight wisp of discharge phenomena should be detectable by now (as with the more remote Chiron), but the evidence is apparently to the contrary.
I don't think it is quite right to invoke straying Birkeland filaments here and there to explain unusual cometary behaviour as in the case of Comet Holmes sudden "brightening".
Any comet/asteroid approaching the Sun, especially from the distance of Jupiter, must surely undergo very serious chemical decomposition, especially at the atomic level, during its comparative gradual motion into increasing areas of more intense plasma (ie the so-called solar wind), so why not 2003 EH?
Well, I don't have all the answers. Wish I did.JohnMT wrote:I think there is a crucial factor involved when attempting to resolve whether a small wayward asteroid such as 2003 EH might develop into a comet or not and that is its mass.
Its all very well to suggest that Asteroid 2003 EH may have inadvertently in the past encountered a Birkeland filament, which gave this object cometary virtues etc, but it does not explain why the object PRESENTLY is not behaving as a comet.
Surely, even at its present distance, even a slight wisp of discharge phenomena should be detectable by now (as with the more remote Chiron), but the evidence is apparently to the contrary.
Holmes is almost double the size of EH1.webolife wrote:mnemoth1,
What you just said ignores pretty much everything known about Comet Holmes.
However, as they say, the truth will out, eventually. So, Now that I sort of know where to look, it's possible to look up other objects. For instance 17p Holmes:MGmirkin wrote:Well, I don't have all the answers. Wish I did.
I didn't see anything noting where the asteroid is presently, nor its speed. However, looking at the initial animation, it appears the object never comes closer to the sun than appx Earth's orbit and doesn't go much further out than Jupiter's orbit. What is the typical eccentricity of a comet and how close do they generally come to the sun? It also looks like the body moves on a plan perpendicular to the sun's equatorial plane (or at least the plane where everything else orbits, more or less).
I finally managed to find an applet with its orbital information...
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=2003+EH1;orb=1
It still seems to be a pretty considerable distance from the sun and considerably below the plane everything else orbits on (and probably the plane where solar flares and CMEs get ejected, primarily?)... One wonders, then whether it would encounter as high a plasma density in that region so far below the equatorial plane? Just thinking out loud.
~Michael Gmirkin
P.S. Running it backward, it looks like September of '08 would have been its closest approach, though still past Earth's orbit.
Umm, when we say bigger, do we mean the nucleus or the coma? Just wondering...mnemeth1 wrote:Holmes is almost double the size of EH1.
EH1 does display some cometary properties as well so its not totally dead.
Holmes also for the most part remains dead.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests