CharlesChandler wrote:Back to your hypothesis, if the rotation of the comet is generating a magnetic field (i.e., a dynamo effect)
viscount aero wrote:In short, corrosion is defined as the deterioration of a metal by a chemical or electrochemical reaction with its environment. If 67P is typical, then Wild 2/Stardust return samples shed clues on cometary composition: What was found was an abundance of olivine (a mineral group)--a magnesium-iron-silicate, and and pyroxene, a high-heat originating silicate. To wit, a comet is a metallic silicate. And it happens that Mg and Fe are highly vulnerable to corrosion.
viscount aero wrote:In my opinion, a key to understanding the comet is the chemistry in relation to the Solar plasma. This relationship is that of an acid (solar wind) (H+) and a base (the comet) (OH-). This interaction and presence of ions is evidence for an electrolytic environment.
Deep Impact saw absolutely no evidence for any ice on the surface of comet Tempel 1. At 56 °C (133 °F) on the sunlit side it was too hot for ices. However, it was reported that there's plenty of ice visible in Tempel 1's coma.
On viewing comet comas spectroscopically and observing the hydroxyl radical (OH), astronomers simply assume it to be a residue of water ice (H2O) broken down by the ultraviolet light of the Sun (photolysis). This assumption requires a reaction rate due to solar UV radiation beyond anything that can be demonstrated experimentally.
A report in Nature more than 25 years ago cast doubt on this mechanism. As Comet Tago-Sato-Kosaka moved away from the Sun, OH production fell twice as fast as that of H, and the ratio of OH:H production was lower than expected if H2O was dominant. The report concludes, “cometary scientists need to consider more carefully whether H2O-ice really does constitute a major fraction of comet nuclei.”
The mystery of ‘missing water’ is resolved electrically in the transaction between a negatively charged comet and the Sun. In this model, electrical discharges strip negative oxygen ions from rocky minerals on the nucleus and accelerate the particles away from the comet in energetic jets. The negative ions then combine with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical, neutral H2O and H2O+.
Alfvén and Gustav Arrhenius note, “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 and hydroxyl radical in a vast cloud surrounding the comet, in some cases accompanied by observation of H20+ or neutral water molecules.” *
The abundance of silicates on comet nuclei, confirmed by infrared spectrometry, led the authors to cite experiments by Arrhenius and Andersen. By irradiating the common mineral, calcium aluminosilicate (anorthite), with protons in the 10 kilovolt range, the experiments “resulted in a substantial (~10 percent) yield of hydroxyl ion and also hydroxyl ion complexes [such as CaOH.]”
A good reason for the experiments was already in hand. Observations on the lunar surface reported by Hapke et al., and independently by Epstein and Taylor had “already demonstrated that such proton-assisted abstraction of oxygen (preferentially 016) from silicates is an active process in space, resulting in a flux of OH and related species.”
The authors note in addition that this removal of oxygen from particles of dust in the cometary coma could be much more efficient than on a solid surface with limited exposure to available protons: “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.”
The authors conclude: “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.” Additionally, they note, 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 the volatile carbon and nitrogen radicals observed in comet comas.
*H Alfvén and Gustav Arrhenius, Evolution of the Solar System, NASA SP-345, 1976, p. 235.
willendure wrote:Rock tumbling through space, solar wind strips of some of its material as OH-. The rock is now charged and rotating, hence it has a magnetic field, always with the pole perpendicular to the rotation.
“We will be able tell what is happening on the lander by the changes in its magnetic field,” says ROMAP co-principal investigator Hans-Ulrich Auster.
These measurements will add to the overall picture of Philae’s progress to the surface of the comet.
Of course, the main focus of these instruments is on science. The comet should retain a memory of any magnetic field that was present in its environs 4.6 billion years ago when the Earth and the other planets were forming. For example, some theories of star and planet formation require a magnetic field to accelerate the growth of our Solar System, while others do not, and thus by measuring the ‘fossil’ field, Rosetta can hope to shed light on this epoch.
In the final few hundred metres of Philae’s descent, ROMAP will detect this magnetic fossil if it exists.
“It’s a simple question, is it there: yes or no. We are just a few days away from knowing the answer to this,” says Auster. – Tracking Philae’s descent with magnetic data
CharlesChandler wrote:viscount aero wrote:In short, corrosion is defined as the deterioration of a metal by a chemical or electrochemical reaction with its environment. If 67P is typical, then Wild 2/Stardust return samples shed clues on cometary composition: What was found was an abundance of olivine (a mineral group)--a magnesium-iron-silicate, and and pyroxene, a high-heat originating silicate. To wit, a comet is a metallic silicate. And it happens that Mg and Fe are highly vulnerable to corrosion.viscount aero wrote:In my opinion, a key to understanding the comet is the chemistry in relation to the Solar plasma. This relationship is that of an acid (solar wind) (H+) and a base (the comet) (OH-). This interaction and presence of ions is evidence for an electrolytic environment.
Dude, that makes a LOT of sense. I agree that the comet is negatively charged, and that the interplanetary medium is positively charged. So something is going to happen.And yes, it would be more like corrosion, since it is chemical, as opposed to erosion, which is physical. It looks like you're well on your way to nailing it down. Follow through on it, and post your conclusions to vixra.org.
Be sure to review the facts that Wal collected (see below) concerning the chemistry of comets and comas (even if you don't necessarily come to the same conclusion)...
viscount aero wrote:I'd like you (and the whomever wishes to read it) to critique it once I have a readable working draft.
willendure wrote:CharlesChandler wrote:Back to your hypothesis, if the rotation of the comet is generating a magnetic field (i.e., a dynamo effect)
Hi,
On this point, could the magnetic field have come into being something like this:
Rock tumbling through space, solar wind strips of some of its material as OH-. The rock is now charged and rotating, hence it has a magnetic field, always with the pole perpendicular to the rotation.
willendure wrote:As more OH- is stripped off, it get more charged, increasing the magnetic field, and consequently concentrating the solar wind onto its poles. A positive feedback.
It doesn't matter too much if the comet rotates a bit (very graudually) around an axis along the neck, as the magnetic field is always perpendicular to the principal axis of rotation. This would simply lead to a "shifting" pole, and more even erosion all around the neck, instead of just on two fixed sides of the neck.
CharlesChandler wrote:viscount aero wrote:I'd like you (and the whomever wishes to read it) to critique it once I have a readable working draft.
Cool -- just let us know when you have something. Cheers!
willendure wrote:CharlesChandler wrote:viscount aero wrote:I'd like you (and the whomever wishes to read it) to critique it once I have a readable working draft.
Cool -- just let us know when you have something. Cheers!
Would love to read it too.
I think there is a testable hypothesis, as I said earlier, if we look at the shape and axis of rotation of other comets, in relation to 67P.
justcurious wrote:My own theory is that the interior is porous...
justcurious wrote:My own theory is that the interior is porous, so once one part of the comet starts getting eroded away by electrical discharging, jagged parts are exposed which are more prone to electrical discharge. Also, charge is concentrated where there is higher curvature, so the neck area would have a higher concentration of charges as seen from far. Or perhaps the interior of the comet has a different composition than the surface which makes it more prone to discharge, once the erosion starts in one area, it would ted to continue there. These are wild speculations, but I think they are better than any other explanations I have seen or heard so far.
WIKI wrote:In the presence of carbon dioxide, however, serpentinitization may form either magnesite (MgCO3) or generate methane (CH4). It is thought that some hydrocarbon gases may be produced by serpentinite reactions within the oceanic crust.
frantic wrote:Why would they think it is shooting out neutral particles. Am I right in thinking that you would be seeing ionization of the comet materials, which than causes the ejection of ions or electrons allowing for all the different compounds so far detected. The water forming from the solar wind and hydroxyl is further evidence of this. Maybe just a miss-wording.
Question, could it make sense that if we have H+ from solar wind and OH- from the comet, that something like the following could be maintaining a balance with the erosion of the comet and input of the solar wind. Any H20 being produced is entering into these reactions.
Reaction 1a:
Fayalite + water → magnetite + aqueous silica + hydrogen
3Fe2SiO4 + 2H2O → 2Fe3O4 + 3SiO2 + 2H2
Reaction 1b:
Forsterite + aqueous silica → serpentine
3Mg2SiO4 + SiO2 + 4H2O → 2Mg3Si2O5(OH)4
Reaction 1c:
Forsterite + water → serpentine + brucite
2Mg2SiO4 + 3H2O → Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + Mg(OH)2
I think when this has been looked at before all assumptions are based on water in the asteroid/comet being within the body, and consumed overtime, as opposed to a dynamic input, there conclusions therefore would be different than if they had considered water external to the body as a primary source. This takes away the assumption of a nice slow gradual consumption of a known quantity of water that works so well for math. It is a dynamic input difficult to quantify.
Frantic wrote:Viscount I had speculated something similar to what you are thinking awhile back. I don't know if this would work, but what I was thinking is something like this :
Forsterite + water → serpentine + brucite
2Mg2SiO4 + 3H2O → Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + Mg(OH)2 →
Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + Mg(OH)2+ 6H (solar wind)→ 6H2O + Mg3Si2O5 + Mg
the 6H2O incorporates into the coma and eventually combines once again with fosterite, creating the "aquesous rock"
The water infusing into the rock creates the material to be eroded, the location of the aqueous rock may not be uniform do to the initial or continual depositing of water in a preferential location. Hence the subsequent erosion from that location. I think it is a balanced equation that is variable based on solar wind input.
I struggle a little bit with understanding the electrolytic environment you describe and even the process I am describing as I am no chemistry expert, but keep working on it....
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests