Rosetta captures comet outburst

August 25, 2016
Rosetta’s OSIRIS wide-angle camera captured an outburst from the Atum region on Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko’s large lobe on 19 February 2016. The images are separated by half an hour each, covering the period 08:40–12:10 GMT, and as such show the comet rotating. Brightening in an initially shadowed region is first seen in the 09:40 image, with significant increase in brightness in subsequent images before subsiding again. The structure of more defined streams of dust and gas is also visible in later images. Credit: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA

In unprecedented observations made earlier this year, Rosetta unexpectedly captured a dramatic comet outburst that may have been triggered by a landslide.

Nine of Rosetta's instruments, including its cameras, dust collectors, and gas and plasma analysers, were monitoring the comet from about 35 km in a coordinated planned sequence when the outburst happened on 19 February.

"Over the last year, Rosetta has shown that although activity can be prolonged, when it comes to outbursts, the timing is highly unpredictable, so catching an event like this was pure luck," says Matt Taylor, ESA's Rosetta project scientist.

"By happy coincidence, we were pointing the majority of instruments at the comet at this time, and having these simultaneous measurements provides us with the most complete set of data on an outburst ever collected."

The data were sent to Earth only a few days after the outburst, but subsequent analysis has allowed a clear chain of events to be reconstructed, as described in a paper led by Eberhard Grün of the Max-Planck-Institute for Nuclear Physics, Heidelberg, accepted for publication in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

A strong brightening of the comet's dusty coma was seen by the OSIRIS wide-angle camera at 09:40 GMT, developing in a region of the comet that was initially in shadow.

Over the next two hours, Rosetta recorded outburst signatures that exceeded background levels in some instruments by factors of up to a hundred. For example, between about 10:00–11:00 GMT, ALICE saw the ultraviolet brightness of the sunlight reflected by the nucleus and the emitted dust increase by a factor of six, while ROSINA and RPC detected a significant increase in gas and plasma, respectively, around the spacecraft, by a factor of 1.5–2.5.

The majority of Rosetta’s instruments were on and pointing at Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko at the time of the outburst on 19 February 2016, allowing a clear chain of events to be reconstructed. The graphic highlights some of the measurements from the cameras, dust collectors, and gas and plasma analysers, with each one recording a peak compared with background levels at various times during the outburst. Credit: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA; all data from Grün et al (2016)

In addition, MIRO recorded a 30ºC rise in temperature of the surrounding gas.

Shortly after, Rosetta was blasted by dust: GIADA recorded a maximum hit count at around 11:15 GMT. Almost 200 particles were detected in the following three hours, compared with a typical rate of 3–10 collected on other days in the same month.

At the same time, OSIRIS narrow-angle camera images began registering emitted during the blast. Between 11:10 GMT and 11:40 GMT, a transition occurred from grains that were distant or slow enough to appear as points in the images, to those either close or fast enough to be captured as trails during the exposures.

In addition, the startrackers, which are used to navigate and help control Rosetta's attitude, measured an increase in light scattered from dust particles as a result of the outburst.

The startrackers are mounted at 90º to the side of the spacecraft that hosts the majority of science instruments, so they offered a unique insight into the 3-D structure and evolution of the outburst.

Astronomers on Earth also noted an increase in coma density in the days after the outburst.

By examining all of the available data, scientists believe they have identified the source of the outburst.

On 19 February 2016 Rosetta’s instruments detected an outburst event from Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. The source was traced back to a location in the Atum region, on the comet’s large lobe, as indicated in this image. The inset image was taken a few hours after the outburst by Rosetta’s NavCam and shows the approximate source location. The image at left was taken on 21 March 2015 and is shown for context, and so there are some differences in shadowing/illumination as a result of the images being acquired at very different times. Credit: ESA/Rosetta/NavCam – CC BY-SA IGO 3.0

"From Rosetta's observations, we believe the outburst originated from a steep slope on the comet's large lobe, in the Atum region," says Eberhard.

The fact that the outburst started when this area just emerged from shadow suggests that thermal stresses in the surface material may have triggered a landslide that exposed fresh water ice to direct solar illumination. The ice then immediately turned to gas, dragging surrounding dust with it to produce the debris cloud seen by OSIRIS.

"Combining the evidence from the OSIRIS images with the long duration of the GIADA dust impact phase leads us to believe that the cone was very broad," says Eberhard.

"As a result, we think the must have been triggered by a landslide at the surface, rather than a more focused jet bringing fresh material up from within the interior, for example."

"We'll continue to analyse the data not only to dig into the details of this particular event, but also to see if it can help us better understand the many other outbursts witnessed over the course of the mission," adds Matt.

"It's great to see the instrument teams working together on the important question of how cometary outbursts are triggered."

Explore further: Comet's firework display ahead of perihelion

More information: "The 19 Feb. 2016 outburst of comet 67P/CG: A Rosetta multi-instrument study," by E. Grün et al is published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw2088

Related Stories

Comet's firework display ahead of perihelion

August 11, 2015

In the approach to perihelion over the past few weeks, Rosetta has been witnessing growing activity from Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, with one dramatic outburst event proving so powerful that it even pushed away the ...

Rosetta's big day in the sun

August 14, 2015

ESA's Rosetta today witnessed Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko making its closest approach to the sun. The exact moment of perihelion occurred at 02:03 GMT this morning when the comet came within 186 million km of the sun.

OSIRIS spots Philae drifting across the comet

November 18, 2014

These incredible images show the breathtaking journey of Rosetta's Philae lander as it approached and then rebounded from its first touchdown on Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko on 12 November 2014.

Image: Rosetta selfie 16 km from comet

October 15, 2014

Using the CIVA camera on Rosetta's Philae lander, the spacecraft have snapped a 'selfie' at comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko from a distance of about 16 km from the surface of the comet. The image was taken on 7 October ...

Outburst of shooting stars up to 200 mph - meteors per hour

August 10, 2016

The heavens will be bursting with shooting stars this week.bThursday night into early Friday, the annual Perseid (PUR'-see-ihd) meteor shower is expected to peak with double the normal number of meteors. Scientists call this ...

Recommended for you

NASA telescope studies quirky comet 45P

November 22, 2017

When comet 45P zipped past Earth early in 2017, researchers observing from NASA's Infrared Telescope Facility, or IRTF, in Hawai'i gave the long-time trekker a thorough astronomical checkup. The results help fill in crucial ...

Uncovering the origins of galaxies' halos

November 21, 2017

Using the Subaru Telescope atop Maunakea, researchers have identified 11 dwarf galaxies and two star-containing halos in the outer region of a large spiral galaxy 25 million light-years away from Earth. The findings, published ...

Cassini image mosaic: A farewell to Saturn

November 21, 2017

In a fitting farewell to the planet that had been its home for over 13 years, the Cassini spacecraft took one last, lingering look at Saturn and its splendid rings during the final leg of its journey and snapped a series ...

152 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Solon
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 25, 2016
Caused by a landslide? They know the most likely cause, but of course can't publicly mention it, electron beam etching.
SCVGoodToGo
4.5 / 5 (15) Aug 25, 2016
electron beam etching


You're joking, right? Please say you're joking.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (14) Aug 25, 2016
Caused by a landslide? They know the most likely cause, but of course can't publicly mention it, electron beam etching.
This is such a specious comment, so bereft of anything approaching logic or reasonableness, that it can only reasonably be called stupid. A satellite in orbit around a comet with all of it's instruments pointing towards the comet it is orbiting catches an outburst from start to finish and some stupid EU Cultist claims that an unseen magical electrical bolt from nowhere somehow managed to sneak in and "etch" the comet. Must have "etched" a petroglyph that says "holy cow are EU Cultists stupid".

Or something.

Jeezus cantthink, get your Cultists under control! Oh, wait, it's can'tthink - he's probably to stupid to realize he shouldn't applaud. Reeve? Oh, wait - probably believes its a petroglyph.

Talbott is laughing all the way to the bank and Alfven is rolling in his grave.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 25, 2016
Hey, do not laugh. There may be a 6.73 GeV e-beam generator hiding behind the orbiter.

You just never know, . . the "History" channel says them aliens is smart.
BurnBabyBurn
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 25, 2016
Those mentally ill EU trolls post on this site without being deleted? It makes any debate on here like holding a physics conference at a crack house.

cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2016
Here is an example of said "magical" electron beams in space. Magnutts claims magic due to complete and utter ignorance of plasma processes.
http://www.univer...surface/

As usual he relies on lies and obfuscation to promote his ignorant POV.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 25, 2016
Hey, do not laugh. There may be a 6.73 GeV e-beam generator hiding behind the orbiter.

You just never know, . . the "History" channel says them aliens is smart.

It must have been a dark matter landslide.
cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 25, 2016
Those mentally ill EU trolls post on this site without being deleted? It makes any debate on here like holding a physics conference at a crack house.

They must not have noticed this cockpuppet when they deleted the 10-12 other cockpuppets of yours.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2016
Here is an example of said "magical" electron beams in space
@cd
no, that is an example of an article of opinion written about a subject matter, which is referenced in said article

if you want the "example" of a "field aligned electron population" then you would have linked this: http://onlinelibr...abstract

and just because there are electrons measured in space doesn't mean there is some destructive death ray of plasma beaming craters into any surface it touches (like the moon, mars or grand canyon)

nor is it "evidence" that D/1993 F2 was destroyed by plasma discharge rather than reaching the Roche limit of a large gravitational well

nor is it evidence of an electric sun or any other eu claim

until your eu actually abides by the scientific method it is and always will be considered pseudoscience

Solon
1 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2016
"Hey, do not laugh. There may be a 6.73 GeV e-beam generator hiding behind the orbiter."

why GeV? The low eV values needed for etching have been measured at the comet.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2016
Regarding magnutt's "magic" electron beams, one can refer to the paper that is the basis of the Universe Today article to see they describe what the Rosetta mission data reveal.
Paper here;
http://onlinelibr...127/full
Not paywalled, how about that...
Anyways, take a look at Fig. 3, the RWPS portion. There is a spike in said data. The RPC-MIP data in the illustration above show a similar spike. Both of those instruments are similar in their function, and here is what is said about the RWPS data in the Hyperion paper;
" the RPWS instrument observed an intense plasma wave feature near 2 kHz (Figure 3), with no magnetic component above the instrument threshold. This is consistent with the signature of a Langmuir wave, which may occur due to plasma density perturbations in the presence of electron beams [Gurnett and Bhattacharjee, 2005]."

Hmmmmm. Magic he says, I says ignorance.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2016
The RPC-LAP data may indicate that it was Rosetta itself which was part of the discharge as the spacecraft's potential also spiked. But I digress, discharge such as electron beams cannot occur in plasmas. Silly me, they're magic!
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2016
The Osiris data reveal just as you'd expect from electric discharge as well. Activity initiates as the two surfaces approach and "feel" one another, then at the right distance/density a spike as the connection occurs, followed by a quick reversal as the equalization process proceeds. But electric discharge is magic...
jonesdave
3 / 5 (14) Aug 26, 2016
@cantthink,
But electric discharge is magic...


No, not magic, just not observed. And it would have been. Why don't you consult one of the electric discharge geniuses at Thunderdolts (there must be loads of them; surely?), and ask them what sort of signature an electric discharge would leave in, let's say...... the radio spectrum? And then read the paper again to see what was observed in the said spectrum.
Just like Thornhill's lie about an electric discharge at Tempel 1, this is more EU rubbish that is easily refuted by the data (or total lack of it). As would have been realised by anybody who actually understands the science relating to such things. Which Thornhill and his scientifically illiterate followers obviously don't.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (14) Aug 26, 2016
"Hey, do not laugh. There may be a 6.73 GeV e-beam generator hiding behind the orbiter."

why GeV? The low eV values needed for etching have been measured at the comet.


And, despite 2 years worth of observations, at various wavelengths, nothing has been seen that would help the scientifically illiterate electric comet nonsense. Not a sausage. Please tell us, based on your knowledge of such things (likely to be zero), in what wavelengths this sort of thing ought to be seen. UV? FUV? Radio? X-ray? IR? Microwave? All of these wavelengths have been used to study comets; and there is still zero evidence for the scientifically challenged imaginings of the cretins Thornhill & Talbott. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Just fairy tales based on mountains being blasted off of planets by invisible interplanetary lightning bolts. Laughable.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2016
No, not magic, just not observed. And it would have been.

Not observed? Or just ignored? From the abstract;
"However, even the electron density at Rosetta increased by a factor 3 and consequently the spacecraft potential changed from ∼−16 V to −20 V during the outburst."
That one sentence confirms there was an electric discharge.

The scientifically challenged cretin is obviously yourself, easily refuted by the observations.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2016
Oh wait, silly me. It's not electric discharge, it's the other "electric discharge"...
gkam
1 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2016
It was sending a message to Jupiter.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2016
Not observed? Or just ignored? From the abstract;
"However, even the electron density at Rosetta increased by a factor 3 and consequently the spacecraft potential changed from ��Ľ−16 V to −20 V during the outburst."
That one sentence confirms there was an electric discharge.

The scientifically challenged cretin is obviously yourself, easily refuted by the observations.

It DOES NOT confirm there was a discharge, you illiterate cat herder! That you are too indoctrinated by your Cult of Magic Electric Bolts to understand how stupid that comment is just confirms that you are an Acolyte and that there is no evidence, none, that will sway you from your ignorance of the evidence that your cherished beliefs might be wrong. You use dogma and confirmation bias to support and justify your belief in the Great Electrical Pantheon while steadfastly ignoring that which does not conform and denigrating any who point it out. You are as dogmatic as the worst priest or imam.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2016
Here is an example of said "magical" electron beams in space. Magnutts claims magic due to complete and utter ignorance of plasma processes.
http://www.univer...surface/

As usual he relies on lies and obfuscation to promote his ignorant POV.

That is not an example of "electron beams" Acolyte! Or any other kind of "beam". Or any support of anything in your stupid magical imaginary Electric Stupidity (TM).

You are an Acolyte of the Church of the Sacred Lightning Bolt, and like a Scientologist or Radical Islamic or Fundamentalist Christian you will not listen to or accept ANY evidence that your cherished beliefs might be wrong. You use dogma and confirmation bias to support and justify your belief in the Great Electrical Pantheon while steadfastly ignoring that which does not conform and denigrating any who point it out to you.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2016
That is not an example of "electron beams" Acolyte!


From the linked abstract;
"Approximately 6 min before the closest approach, the electron spectrometer (ELS), part of the Cassini Plasma Spectrometer (CAPS) detected a field-aligned electron population originating from the direction of the moon's surface. Plasma wave activity detected by the Radio and Plasma Wave instrument suggests electron beam activity."

So maggnuts, these guys must also belong to the Church of the blah blah blah. You are the one relying on dogmatic beliefs to ignore the obvious.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2016
Oh wait, silly me. It's not electric discharge, it's the other "electric discharge"...

No, stupid you. Use the correct adjective Acolyte.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2016
That is not an example of "electron beams" Acolyte!


From the linked abstract;
"Approximately 6 min before the closest approach, the electron spectrometer (ELS), part of the Cassini Plasma Spectrometer (CAPS) detected a field-aligned electron population originating from the direction of the moon's surface. Plasma wave activity detected by the Radio and Plasma Wave instrument suggests electron beam activity."
I don't know why I bother, as you will not (not can't, won't - well maybe can't too) understand. You ignore that the author of the paper is casting about looking for a parallel that can be easily imagined by a lay person. But it is Imaginary Acolyte - just like your Venusian comet-like tail. It is just described that way so that people like you, who know essentially nothing about plasma or discharge or the build up of static charge on the surface of a large chunk of rock, can get a fuzzy mental picture of what is happening.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2016
From here: http://onlinelibr...127/full

"The Cassini magnetometer (MAG) [Dougherty et al., 2004] did not observe any clear magnetic field signature that could be associated with Hyperion, which is consistent with a simple plasma absorber, and the fact that the spacecraft did not pass through the moon's plasma wake."

"Based on these observations, we conclude that it is easily plausible that the Cassini spacecraft was magnetically connected to the surface of Hyperion when the electron feature in CAPS-ELS was observed and that the observed field-aligned electron population is Hyperionian in origin."

"The expected surface potential of Hyperion during the flyby was evaluated using the model of Roussos et al. [2010], which is based on the formulation of Manka [1973] for Earth's Moon and modified for the decoupling between solar illumination and plasma flow angles onto the surfaces of the Saturnian moons.

and:
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 26, 2016
Right, it's an "electron beam", not an electron beam...
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2016
"These studies have generally found that the dayside lunar surface is charged a few volts positive (~10 V) "

"By observing electron pitch angle distributions using the Electron Reflectometer instrument on board the Lunar Prospector spacecraft, Halekas et al. [2002] found evidence of field-aligned upward going electron beams originating from the lunar night side. These were explained as being due to secondary electrons emitted at low energies and subsequently accelerated by an electrostatic potential at the surface, with a central energy proportional to the potential difference between the spacecraft and the lunar surface."

"The inferred surface potential is proportional to the potential difference between the spacecraft and the moon's surface and is on the order of −200 V based on the energy of the field-aligned electron populations observed by CAPS-ELS."

and
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2016
Right, it's an "electron beam", not an electron beam...
No stupid, it is a stream of electrons flowing between the magnetically connected, weakly statically charged surface and the metal spacecraft. It is an imaginary construct that can more simply be described as a "beam" than the more correct but very wordy explanation of what it really is. It is intended for those who actually understand plasma, who already understand that there is no "beam" per se.

Cat herding.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 26, 2016
it is a stream of electrons flowing between the magnetically connected, weakly statically charged surface and the metal spacecraft.


LOL! Like I said, it's not an electron beam, it's an "electron beam" per se...
Solon
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2016
MAGNETIC EXPLOSION ON THE SUN (Late 18 Feb 2016)
http://www.spacew...ear=2016

Just coincidence?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 26, 2016
"Hey, do not laugh. There may be a 6.73 GeV e-beam generator hiding behind the orbiter."

why GeV? The low eV values needed for etching have been measured at the comet.
George likes large things like GeV and HIGH ENERGY alpha and 'WMDs!!!' because it suits his compulsive nature and his egomania and his intrinsic right to victimize lesser beings.

Why blurt small things?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 26, 2016
No, not magic, just not observed. And it would have been.

Not observed? Or just ignored? From the abstract;
"However, even the electron density at Rosetta increased by a factor 3 and consequently the spacecraft potential changed from �Ľ−16 V to −20 V during the outburst."
That one sentence confirms there was an electric discharge.

The scientifically challenged cretin is obviously yourself, easily refuted by the observations.


Jesus. How thick do you need to be?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 26, 2016
No, not magic, just not observed. And it would have been.

Not observed? Or just ignored? From the abstract;
"However, even the electron density at Rosetta increased by a factor 3 and consequently the spacecraft potential changed from �Ľ−16 V to −20 V during the outburst."
That one sentence confirms there was an electric discharge.

The scientifically challenged cretin is obviously yourself, easily refuted by the observations.


Really, shit for brains? Like me to correspond with the author? And post his replies here? Don't think you'd want that, eh?
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Aug 26, 2016
@Cantthinkforf*ck,
That one sentence confirms there was an electric discharge....


Really? How do you figure that? Where else was this electric discharge seen? In UV? Radio? Et bleeding cetera. You are talking absolute crap, as usual. Mate, do yourself a favour and take up something else. Science really isn't your thing, eh?
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 26, 2016
For the hard of thinking, here is a little exercise; how does the spacecraft potential dropping from ~-16V to ~-20V prove an electric discharge? Please. Include numbers. And equations.
As we all know, that explanation will not be forthcoming, because we are dealing with f**kwits.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 26, 2016
MAGNETIC EXPLOSION ON THE SUN (Late 18 Feb 2016)
http://www.spacew...ear=2016

Just coincidence?


Yes, you idiot. How many f****ing times do you need to be pointed at papers which say that this comet has been through numerous solar outbursts, and managed to do five eighths of ***k all?
Jesus. Thick, or what?
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2016
Really? How do you figure that? Where else was this electric discharge seen? In UV? Radio? Et bleeding cetera.

Did you read the article? The paper? Look at the illustrations?
First there was brightening detected by the WAC, these are the "leaders"of the discharge. Then the Alice device (UV Imaging Spectrograph) detected a spike. Followed by the WAC and NAC brightness spikes. And a spike in temperature as shown by MIRO. Then comes the wave of plasma (electrons) as shown by the RPC-MIP instrument, and the near immediate potential change in the spacecraft (RPC-LAP instrument). Now comes the spike in neutrals (ROSINA), pulled along by the discharge but not as fast as the electrons. Finally the dust is closing in, as it does it too discharges (shown by the Startracker spike) and finally the heaviest matter, the dust, arrives at the sensor (GIADA).

Quite frankly, it's plain to see if you just calm down and take your Prozac. You're getting a little worked up.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2016
For the hard of thinking, here is a little exercise; how does the spacecraft potential dropping from ~-16V to ~-20V prove an electric discharge?

For the hard of thinking, let us begin with the definition;
"An electric discharge is the release and transmission of electricity in an applied electric field through a medium such as a gas. Several types of electric discharges occur naturally on Earth" (American Geophysical Union, 1986): 1.
Electric Discharge - Springer
link.springer.com/10.1007%2F978-3-642-11274-4_490

By that definition, that is exactly what we have here. A wave of electrons impacted the spacecraft, as shown by the MIP and potential change by the LAP. How can you conceivably deny a discharge event? Only to be as dense as the vishnu schist can one hope to deny this obviousness.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2016
A discharge as described by your quote is mediated by avalanche breakdown of a gas.
Here, there is no gas.
"For the hard of thinking" comes back to you like a boomerang.

Actually, blood, milk and cells also consist of plasma. We are plasma!
https://en.wikipe...i/Plasma
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2016
For those who really want to know what went on:
http://www.esa.in...outburst
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2016
A discharge as described by your quote is mediated by avalanche breakdown of a gas.
Here, there is no gas.
"For the hard of thinking" comes back to you like a boomerang.

I know this is hard for you phails1, if you read all the words you will see it states "a medium such as a gas". The medium here is in fact the coma, you know the cometary plasma. So no boomerang, just you biting your own tongue.

Actually, blood, milk and cells also consist of plasma. We are plasma!
https://en.wikipe...i/Plasma

It is understood that Langmuir coined the term plasma due to it's similarity to biological blood plasma and it's lifelike qualities.

For those who really want to know what went on:
http://www.esa.in...outburst

Where is the debris field? Oh right, it was a dark matter landslide.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2016
Right, it's an "electron beam", not an electron beam...
No stupid, it is a stream of electrons flowing between the magnetically connected, weakly statically charged surface and the metal spacecraft. It is an imaginary construct that can more simply be described as a "beam" than the more correct but very wordy explanation of what it really is. It is intended for those who actually understand plasma, who already understand that there is no "beam" per se.

Here is a paper from 90 years ago where Irving Langmuir speaks of these electron beams which maggnuts seems to have such trouble with;
http://www.pnas.o...14/8/627
Now remember, Langmuir is referring to electron beams, not "electron beams".
Here is Peratt's take on plasma beams;
http://www.plasma...eams.pdf
Just to clarify, those aren't "beams" per se, they are beams...
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2016
To top off the obvious, take a look at the gif at the top of the page. As the active region of 67P rotates into view it would appear that Rosetta finds itself in the path of the jets originating from 67P. If so, Rosetta would then be "connected" to 67P similar to Cassini's connection to Hyperion and the discharge should be an unsurprising outcome.
Phys1
3 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2016
A discharge as described by your quote is mediated by avalanche breakdown of a gas.
Here, there is no gas.
"For the hard of thinking" comes back to you like a boomerang.

I know this is hard for you phails1, if you read all the words you will see it states "a medium such as a gas". The medium here is in fact the coma, you know the cometary plasma. So no boomerang, just you biting your own tongue.

The description you advanced describes avalanche breakdown in a gas, which certainly means a neutral gas. Not dust as in a coma, nor plasma.
My money is still on NASA. They are smarter than you, because they actually were capable of sending the mission over there.
What you are saying is that NASA is "hard of thinking" and you have no evidence or credible model to show. What am I to think? That you are totally deluded.
BurnBabyBurn
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2016
Maggnus 5 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2016

Not observed? Or just ignored? From the abstract;
"However, even the electron density at Rosetta increased by a factor 3 and consequently the spacecraft potential changed from ď��ď��Ä�−16 V to −20 V during the outburst."
That one sentence confirms there was an electric discharge.

The scientifically challenged cretin is obviously yourself, easily refuted by the observations.


It DOES NOT confirm there was a discharge, you illiterate cat herder! That you are too indoctrinated by your Cult of Magic Electric Bolts to understand how stupid that comment is just confirms that you are an Acolyte and that there is no evidence, none, that will sway you from your ignorance...


So, what are your comments in aid of?
BurnBabyBurn
not rated yet Aug 27, 2016

cantdrive85 3.7 / 5 (3) 3 hours ago
To top off the obvious


Phys1 3 / 5 (2) 1 hour ago
you are totally deluded.


Got it first post. That took a whole page to QED?
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2016
The description you advanced describes avalanche breakdown in a gas, which certainly means a neutral gas. Not dust as in a coma, nor plasma.

You're suggesting this cannot occur in plasmas, where electrons are freely available? The wiki page includes plasma as a transmission medium.
https://en.wikipe...valanche
What you are saying is that NASA is "hard of thinking"

What I am saying, and have been for years now, is that this plasma is not the idealized ionized gases the standard theory assumes.
Recall, Birkeland's correct theory of the aurora was ignored for 60+ years in favor Chapman's erroneous math based approach. This situation is an analog of that one, where Whipple's theoretical dirty snowball is favored in lieu of the laboratory based electric comet approach. Empiricism trumps theory every time.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2016
@cd85
A plasma simply conducts currents, so no voltage can build up except an ohmic one.
How could that cause an eruption that blows away so much matter from a comet?
And where would such a large electronic current come from?
As sunlight delivers quite a bit of energy, why do we need to invoke electronic currents from out of nowhere.
This is not a theory but an obsession.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 27, 2016
To top off the obvious, take a look at the gif at the top of the page. As the active region of 67P rotates into view it would appear that Rosetta finds itself in the path of the jets originating from 67P. If so, Rosetta would then be "connected" to 67P similar to Cassini's connection to Hyperion and the discharge should be an unsurprising outcome.


Complete and utter crap. No electric discharge was seen. The increases seen were due neutrals from the comet. The spacecraft potential varies due to the increase in electrons accompanying the increase in neutrals, due to photoionisation, cx, etc. More neutrals = more electrons = more negative s/c potential.
Many papers have been written on s/c charging. Maybe you should read some of them?

[cont....]
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 27, 2016
[cont.....]
"These ions appeared quite frequently and often in groups that corresponded in time to the ~6 h period of increases in the measured electron flux, which also usually corresponded with peaks in the neutral gas pressure measured by the Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and Neutral Analysis (ROSINA) instrument on the S/C................................The electrons cause a negative potential of the S/C (in this case ~ -10 to - 20 V), attracting the low-energy ions."
http://onlinelibr...939/full

As explained on numerous occasions, an electric discharge would be bleeding obvious. It would cause disruption of the radio communications, for a start. It would likely blind the optical instruments. It didn't. Alice would have seen it quite clearly in UV. It didn't. In case you are confused, the instrument saw the 'brightness' increase due to increased reflected solar radiation from the dust, as explained in the bloody paper.
[cont.....]
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 27, 2016
[cont.....]
In summary; no evidence has EVER been seen of any electric discharges/ arcing/ EDM at a comet. And they would be bloody obvious. As obvious as the stupidity of this scientifically illiterate drivel that the unqualified loons T & T call 'the electric comet'.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2016
A plasma simply conducts currents, so no voltage can build up except an ohmic one.

This is absolutely untrue, and shows the utter failure of MHD in describing plasmas. Voltages can build in adjacent plasma regions isolated by sheaths and double layers (DL), the cellular nature of plasmas. These cells can store energy and create enormous voltage drops across the sheaths/DL's between two adjacent plasmas (or charged bodies).
How could that cause an eruption that blows away so much matter from a comet?

The electromotive force imparted by the rotating plasma beam etching the surface.
And where would such a large electronic current come from?
As sunlight delivers quite a bit of energy, why do we need to invoke electronic currents from out of nowhere.

You answered your own question, but not just sunlight as the solar wind carries electrons and ions to the coma. And the coma is very large, plenty of surface area to collect these charges.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2016
Complete and utter crap. No electric discharge was seen. The increases seen were due neutrals from the comet. The spacecraft potential varies due to the increase in electrons accompanying the increase in neutrals, due to photoionisation, cx, etc. More neutrals = more electrons = more negative s/c potential.

Stop ignoring the in situ evidence, the wave of electrons as shown by the RPC-MIP preceded the spike in neutrals by several minutes, observations easily refutes your claim.

And the spacecraft charging is a result of electric discharge, by the explicit definition given above. Your willful ignorance is blindingly obvious.

As explained on numerous occasions, an electric discharge would be bleeding obvious.

It's obvious you don't even understand what electric discharge is, how can you claim it would be obvious to see. Rosetta absorbing electrons is electric discharge you moron. By definition.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2016
@cd,
Sorry, but I repeat, that is utter crap. Ask any plasma physicist how any electric discharge would show up. Where is it coming from? Where is it going to? Why is it in a diffuse cone shape? How powerful is it? How is it removing H2O & dust from a comet? Why are the neutrals outnumbering the electrons by 5 orders of magnitude? Why are the electrons cold? Why is the temperature of the material -220 C? Why is this discharge powerful enough to do all the evidence-free things that you claim it can, and remain undetected?
And the electrons didn't precede the neutrals. Read the bloody paper. "ROSINA COPS detected significant gas density increase (> 10% of maximum) at the position of Rosetta at 9:57..........RPC-MIP observed an increase of the electron density at Rosetta at 10:00." 1000 hrs is 3 minutes after 0957 hrs.

Seeing as you haven't got a clue, perhaps you could link to the peer reviewed paper that describes this mechanism as it pertains to comets.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2016
As explained on numerous occasions, an electric discharge would be bleeding obvious. It would cause disruption of the radio communications, for a start.
This is merely an assumption of yours, i.e. meaningless.
It would likely blind the optical instruments.
Yep, but the camera took images every 30 min. To catch the actual flash would be exceedingly unlikely. You ever try to take pictures of lightning? The paper mentions this;
"The WAC images obtained at 9:40, however, show a brightening strong enough to saturate the detector in a region where the nucleus should be in shadow."
Would you prefer to ignore that tidbit?
Alice would have seen it quite clearly in UV. It didn't. In case you are confused, the instrument saw the 'brightness' increase due to increased reflected solar radiation from the dust, as explained in the bloody paper.

That is an interpretation, note the data indicate an increase by a factor of 5, then conveniently a data gap. Hmm
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2016
^^^^^^Still talking scientifically illiterate crap. And where's the link that explains this evidence free process? Why are neutrals 5 orders of magnitude higher than electrons? Why are they cold? How is an electron increase from electrons either within the solar wind, or caused by photoionization from cometary neutrals, counted as a discharge? Would like a link for that too.
Where is this discharge coming from? Going to? Is the comet positively or negatively charged? What temperature would the invisible discharge be? How much ionization can we expect? Etc, Etc.
Provide the link, then I wouldn't keep having to ask.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2016
Ask any plasma physicist how any electric discharge would show up.

It would show up with a displacement of electric charges, as was shown. Learn what electric discharge really is, see definition above.
Where is it coming from? Where is it going to?

See the paper, Rosetta had been kept at larger distances from 67P;
"During 2015 the spacecraft had been flying at greater distances from the comet than originally foreseen, in order to avoid the navigational interference caused by the appearance of dust particles in the star tracker cameras."
Charge differential enabled. Don't need to mention the failure of theory which required changing the planned mission.
This was the first close approach to 67P in many months, and by the looks of the visuals it involved flying through or near one of the jets. This would be between 67P and Rosetta, what else?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2016
Where is this link, because you are talking nonsense? Why are the neutrals cold? Why do they outnumber electrons by 5 orders of magnitude? What would be the temp. of this invisible discharge? How is it removing large quantities of gas and dust from the nucleus? Why did this not happen when the s/c returned from the tail excursion? Why did it not happen when it first approached the comet? Lots of outstanding questions, and zero evidence. Really need that link.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2016
How is it removing H2O & dust from a comet?

The same way we use it to perform EDM in manufacturing everyday, worldwide.
Why are the electrons cold? Why is the temperature of the material -220 C?

Why are you unfamiliar with cold plasma, ignorance is no excuse. Why don't plasma televisions explode due to heat?
And the electrons didn't precede the neutrals.

If you reread what I said, I was referring to the peak intensities as reported by the above diagram.
The paper also acknowledged;
"Note that a local decrease in the plasma density is observed just before the onset of the outburst, around 9:45 UT."
This is what would be expected with an electric discharge. I'd be curious to hear your explanation as the how a landslide would cause this phenomenon.
How is an electron increase from electrons within the solar wind counted as a discharge?

By the very definition of electric discharge given by Springer, as is linked above.
Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2016
The description you advanced describes avalanche breakdown in a gas, which certainly means a neutral gas. Not dust as in a coma, nor plasma.

You're suggesting this cannot occur in plasmas, where electrons are freely available? The wiki page includes plasma as a transmission medium.
https://en.wikipe...valanche

I checked but there was no error. It did say that neutral gas is converted into plasma during an avalanche breakdown.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2016
Note this "anomaly" as well, from the paper;
"An important clue, discussed later (see Fig. 18 below), is that the increase in gas temperature near the spacecraft observed by MIRO occurs several minutes after dust is first seen rising from the nucleus, but several minutes before the local gas density increases. Note that dust travelling at metres
per second takes over an hour to travel from the nucleus to the spacecraft, while gas moving at 620 m s−1 takes only about a minute. The relative timing of rising dust at the surface, the increase in gas temperature at the spacecraft, and then the increase in gas density at the spacecraft, is not
yet understood."

"Not yet understood"! So their explanation is incomplete without a "dark" component to bail them out. It's easily explained that an electric discharge caused the temperature increase, not the expected dust.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2016
^^^^So basically, there is no link? You are just making crap up as you go along? Stuff for which there is not now, nor ever has been, any evidence? And where is this 'cold' plasma? Why is it so invisible? Whether it is cold or not, it would be detected. It is not invisible.
The paper explains how a landslide would cause this. Haven't you read it, or simply don't understand it? Subsurface ice (already detected) is suddenly exposed to sunlight at a temperature above its sublimation temp. It sublimates. It's cold. As seen. It is neutral. As seen. There is very little time for ionization, hence why the electrons are vastly outnumbered by neutrals. No silly, scientifically illiterate, evidence free rubbish dreamed up by rank amateurs is needed to explain it.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2016
The description you advanced describes avalanche breakdown in a gas, which certainly means a neutral gas. Not dust as in a coma, nor plasma.

You're suggesting this cannot occur in plasmas, where electrons are freely available? The wiki page includes plasma as a transmission medium.
https://en.wikipe...valanche

I checked but there was no error. It did say that neutral gas is converted into plasma during an avalanche breakdown.

Your error is one of omission of the transmission...medium.

Wiki;
"Electron avalanche:
An electron avalanche is a process in which a number of free electrons in a TRANSMISSION MEDIUM are subjected to strong acceleration by an electric field and subsequently collide with other atoms of the medium..."

What is a transmission medium?
Still wiki;
"A transmission medium is a material substance (solid, liquid, gas, or plasma) that can propagate energy waves."

Plasma qualifies...
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2016
So basically, there is no link?

There is no single link that can explain to you all you need to learn about plasma to overcome your utter ignorance of all things plasma. There is not enough time remaining in your life to overcome what you don't know. Hell, you cannot even understand what electric discharge is even provided a definition. You are so deluded in your preconceived notions of what you think you know, it is utterly hopeless for you to grasp these phenomena.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2016
Stuff for which there is not now, nor ever has been, any evidence?

Except this;

"Rosetta captures comet outburst" amongst others...

Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2016
@cd85

There is no single link that can explain to you all you need to learn about plasma

You don't even understand a gas discharge bulb yourself.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2016
^^^^More crap. No explanations how we get cold EDM at a comet, that somehow remains invisible. Just provide a link that tells us how EDM works at a comet, or planet or moon. Somebody must have written this down, explained the mechanism, put figures on it.
Or, as I say, it is just rubbish made up by mythology driven amateurs. Which is why nobody takes it seriously.

There is no single link that can explain to you all you need to learn about plasma to overcome.....


There are 48 names on that paper, and many, many others who understand plasma far better than you. NONE of them would give this rubbish the time of day. Hence why you only hear about it on places like this.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2016
Charge differential enabled.......


Lol. Yep, the s/c just zoomed in from 1500 km at breakneck speed, and KAPOW!
It moved in slowly over some time. A week earlier it was at ~ 45 km. No KAPOW.
And where are you getting this differential from? What was the s/c charge at 1500 km?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2016
One last point jonesdumb can't seem to wrap his head around. This discharge will not occur at the same intensity or density as lightning on Earth for example. The density/intensity of lightning in Earth's atmosphere is such due to the density of the atmosphere. There is plenty of charge carriers to then become part of the discharge and produce an intense event. In the cometary coma the density is far lower, as such the discharge intensity will too be far lower. The intensity of the discharge is a product of the available charge density. Even at these lower densities the electric forces of these discharges are such that they still can erode surfaces in a similar process as this;
http://news.natio...geology/
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2016
Charge differential enabled.......


Lol. Yep, the s/c just zoomed in from 1500 km at breakneck speed, and KAPOW!
It moved in slowly over some time. A week earlier it was at ~ 45 km. No KAPOW.

Do you really need to rely on lies to "prove" your point?

From the paper;
"The period discussed in this paper was particularly focused on achieving the lowest possible altitudes by orbiting in the terminator plane. As such, it was the first time the spacecraft had been within 50 km of the comet since April 2015."

Lies! All lies!
https://www.youtu...xuxy-OEc
jonesdave
2.9 / 5 (15) Aug 28, 2016
Yep, invisible, undetectable lightning. At a comet. Like I said, where is the link for how this happens at a comet. Specifically, Who wrote it? Why does nobody who understands plasma physics in agreement with it? Like I said, just mythology driven woo dreamed up by scientifically illiterate amateurs.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2016
"The period discussed in this paper was particularly focused on achieving the lowest possible altitudes by orbiting in the terminator plane. As such, it was the first time the spacecraft had been within 50 km of the comet since April 2015."


Well, here it is at 45.8 km on the 13th February: http://blogs.esa....-part-1/
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2016
@cd85

There is no single link that can explain to you all you need to learn about plasma

You don't even understand a gas discharge bulb yourself.

https://www.youtu...xuxy-OEc

Do you know what "transmission medium" means?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2016
"The period discussed in this paper was particularly focused on achieving the lowest possible altitudes by orbiting in the terminator plane. As such, it was the first time the spacecraft had been within 50 km of the comet since April 2015."


Well, here it is at 45.8 km on the 13th February: http://blogs.esa....-part-1/

Well you should point this out to the 48 expert authors which put that statement in the "peer-reviewed" paper from which I copy/pasted it. Do I rely on the peer-reviewed paper, or a blog spot?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2016
It would also be relevant to something which was pointed out earlier in the thread. It is quite clear from the Osiris gif at the top of the page that the active jets sweep across where Rosetta is located. If Rosetta was in or near said jets it would provide the necessary conditions that were different in all other aspects. The authors clearly indicate in the paper that jets were actively avoided and the orbital distance was increased due to a failure of planning/theory.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2016
Yep, invisible, undetectable lightning.

You keep saying this, in direct contradiction of;

"Rosetta captures comet outburst"

and the related (although errantly interpreted) paper above.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2016
"The period discussed in this paper was particularly focused on achieving the lowest possible altitudes by orbiting in the terminator plane. As such, it was the first time the spacecraft had been within 50 km of the comet since April 2015."


Well, here it is at 45.8 km on the 13th February: http://blogs.esa....-part-1/

Well you should point this out to the 48 expert authors which put that statement in the "peer-reviewed" paper from which I copy/pasted it. Do I rely on the peer-reviewed paper, or a blog spot?


You can download the raw data from ESA, I suspect. And the authors only say 'the period', not on a specific day. It had been getting gradually closer, at half rat power, for a long time. It had been to 1500 km. Then came back in to around 400-500 km for a while, before inching its way closer again.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2016
Yep, invisible, undetectable lightning.

You keep saying this, in direct contradiction of;

"Rosetta captures comet outburst"

and the related (although errantly interpreted) paper above.


Who says it's misinterpreted? I keep asking. Where is this explained in a peer reviewed paper? Who is telling them they are wrong? What are his/ her qualifications and experience with cometary missions?
As far as I can see, there is NO hypothesis. Just made up nonsense which continually changes to try to make the aforesaid nonsense fit the observations.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2016
If you'd like to see a much quicker excursion and return, I'd suggest the tail excursion is a better bet. On 30 March it was at 1000 km. By 10 April it was back at 30 km. Nothing happened.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2016
If you'd like to see a much quicker excursion and return, I'd suggest the tail excursion is a better bet. On 30 March it was at 1000 km. By 10 April it was back at 30 km. Nothing happened.

Did it fly near or through a jet as it did this time?
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2016
In no way this resembles anything like a discharge.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2016
If you'd like to see a much quicker excursion and return, I'd suggest the tail excursion is a better bet. On 30 March it was at 1000 km. By 10 April it was back at 30 km. Nothing happened.

Did it fly near or through a jet as it did this time?


Why would it need a jet? According to you the jets are caused by the s/c potential. Or is that wrong? Because I can'r figure out what BS you are on about now. What is causing the cone of neutrals and dust to leave the comet? Magic? How does a s/c dissipating ~ 5V of charge over a day or two amount to this non-existent plasma discharge b*llocks? I'll give you ~ 5V. What is that 5V doing? Would it run my electric shaver? Would it lift 70 tonnes worth of gas off of a comet?
PLEASE show us where the 'theory' for this never observed crap actually exists. Who wrote it? Who believes it? Who will ever believe it (nobody)?
Link please; cold plasma causing all sorts of woo at a comet. Link it, and I might read it.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2016
^^^^So, is the whole 20 V powering this non-existent discharge? Well, no, because it returns to ~ - 15 V after the outburst. Eh? So how much does 5 V get you? Is this non-existent discharge heading towards the spacecraft, or away from it?
I assume that you are saying that the comet is positively charged, given that the s/c is negatively charged. Yes? So why are we seeing neutrals dominating the outburst? Doesn't this discharge have the power to ionize anything? At 5 V over a few days, I would say not.
So, let's hear it again, with a link to back up this bullsh*t.
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2016
with a link to back up this bullsh*t.

And I have this link to support it:
https://upload.wi...hile.jpg
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2016
and the related (although errantly interpreted) paper above
@cd
wait a minute....
you can't prove astrophysicists don't know plasma physics...
you can't prove your electric sun
you can't prove moon craters were formed by plasma discharge and not asteroids
you can't prove your grand canyon formation delusoin
you can't prove the breakup of D/1993 F2 was from plasma discharge...

you have yet to prove, using the scientific method, 95% (actually more) of the claims you make on PO that are based upon your delusional cult beliefs...

but now you want us to believe the above paper is "errantly interpreted" [sic] ????

.

you do realise what i am going to ask, right?

where is your evidence?
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2016
with a link to back up this bullsh*t.

And I have this link to support it:
https://upload.wi...hile.jpg


Yep, that about sums it up :)

I'll summarise the paper: outburst from sublimating ice. Spacecraft detects cold neutrals. As expected. Very little ionisation. As expected. Molecules arrive at precisely the velocity one would expect from low temperature sublimation of ice. As expected. Dust detected. As expected.
Somehow though, this becomes evidence for a cold plasma somehow appearing, and managing to loft all of this stuff from the comet surface. Via a mechanism that has never been proposed in a peer reviewed paper. And for which there is no evidence. Brilliant. Got to love cranks.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2016
Let us summarize with accuracy;
Contrary to jonesdumb's claims, there was quite a bit of ionization. From the paper;
"Following the increase in neutral density by a factor of about 1.8 (ROSINA COPS, section 2.6), MIP and LAP observed a local plasma density increase by a factor of about 2.7 to 3 during the outburst"
They continue;
" An increase in the ionisation source closer to the comet could explain the significant relative increase in plasma density, which is LARGER THAN THE RELATIVE INCREASE in neutral density, observed at Rosetta during the outburst. However, other possible explanations exist, such as a reduced neutral outflow velocity or changes in composition. Further studies are needed to identify the exact mechanisms causing the variable plasma density as well as the faster plasma density decay compared to the neutral density decay"
"Further studies are needed"... Contrary to jonesdumb's lies, it wasn't "as expected".
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2016
Then jonesdumb goes on to say;
Molecules arrive at precisely the velocity one would expect from low temperature sublimation of ice.
They mention this in re to the MIRO data;
"Hofstadter et al. (2016) explore three possible explanations for the increase in coma temperature. One is that the gas during the outburst is coming from a source region on the nucleus with a significantly higher physical temperature than the normally sublimating regions."
So, the only way to account for the increased temps is to assume the source to be "significantly higher physical temperature than the normally sublimating regions".
Significantly high temps than normally sublimating regions, yet jonesdumb claims "as expected"...
What other lies do you have for us jonesdumb?
Right...
Via a mechanism that has never been proposed in a peer reviewed paper

http://onlinelibr...127/full
Electric discharge, as proposed in linked paper.
Gonna have to lie better.

Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2016
but now you want us to believe the above paper is "errantly interpreted" [sic] ????


I think he means you was wandering about while you were reading it.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2016
@cantthink,
I'm lying? You're the one with the evidence-free, scientifically illiterate rubbish! Which 10 years after T & T's laughably bad electric comet poster, is still scientifically illiterate and evidence free.

http://hyperphysi....html#c4

Input the parameters in the above link. As expected, like I said.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2016
Contrary to jonesdumb's claims, there was quite a bit of ionization


Gas density (neutral): 1.49 x10^8 cm^3 (max)
Electron density: 1200 cm^3 (max)

By my maths that is 5 orders of magnitude less than the cold, neutral gas. Yep, there was shed loads of ionization! Not.
Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2016
Stay away from science, cantthink.
Didn't your mommy tell you you're not smart enough?
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2016
@cantthink,
Electric discharge, as proposed in linked paper.
Gonna have to lie better.


Problem for you is you don't understand what you are reading. Point me to the word 'discharge' in that paper. How much neutral gas was lifted from the icy surface during that magnetic connection? How has a moon within Saturn's magnetosphere got anything to do with what is happening with a comet at 2.5 AU? 5/8ths of sod all, would be the answer to that. Again, how much dust and H2O gas was seen?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Aug 29, 2016
And for more of the "as expected"-
From the paper;
"A further interesting feature of this outburst is that the gas production decreased much faster than expected from direct solar illumination."

So, not expected according to the hypothesis laid out. It would seem there is plenty of room for alternative explanations considering these unexpected data.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2016
Contrary to jonesdumb's claims, there was quite a bit of ionization


Gas density (neutral): 1.49 x10^8 cm^3 (max)
Electron density: 1200 cm^3 (max)

By my maths that is 5 orders of magnitude less than the cold, neutral gas. Yep, there was shed loads of ionization! Not.

It's all relative, as the paper points out.

"An increase in the ionisation source closer to the comet could explain the significant relative increase in plasma density, which is LARGER THAN THE RELATIVE INCREASE in neutral density, observed at Rosetta during the outburst"

jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2016
And for more of the "as expected"-
From the paper;
"A further interesting feature of this outburst is that the gas production decreased much faster than expected from direct solar illumination."

So, not expected according to the hypothesis laid out. It would seem there is plenty of room for alternative explanations considering these unexpected data.


No there aren't, unless you've got some evidence we don't know about. It was sublimating ice. Simple as that. As detected by the spacecraft. Within the parameters they would expect. No electric comet rubbish seen, or needed. And as you failed to mention, the outburst could well have been quenched by dust.
None of the observations help the electric comet garbage one iota. It is still an evidence free zone.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2016
Stay away from science, cantthink.
Didn't your mommy tell you you're not smart enough?

Transmission medium....
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2016
Contrary to jonesdumb's claims, there was quite a bit of ionization


Gas density (neutral): 1.49 x10^8 cm^3 (max)
Electron density: 1200 cm^3 (max)

By my maths that is 5 orders of magnitude less than the cold, neutral gas. Yep, there was shed loads of ionization! Not.

It's all relative, as the paper points out.

"An increase in the ionisation source closer to the comet could explain the significant relative increase in plasma density, which is LARGER THAN THE RELATIVE INCREASE in neutral density, observed at Rosetta during the outburst"



And it was still 100 000 times less than the cold, neutral gas. Not at all what we'd expect from T & Ts EDM rubbish. Nor was the gas velocity. Or its temperature, all of which are fully consistent with sublimation. Which has already been seen.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Aug 29, 2016
It was sublimating ice.

From paper;
"One is that the gas during the outburst is coming from a source region on the nucleus with a significantly higher physical temperature than the normally sublimating regions."

It was sublimating ices, heated by a dark matter landslide?
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2016
It was sublimating ice.

From paper;
"One is that the gas during the outburst is coming from a source region on the nucleus with a significantly higher physical temperature than the normally sublimating regions."

It was sublimating ices, heated by a dark matter landslide?

@cantthink,
What the hell are you on about now? It's pointless looking up references to this, as you will only carry on believing in your mythology based woo, dreamed up by a couple of scientifically illiterate nutjobs. Are you not getting it, cd? Nobody believes their rubbish. Nobody takes it remotely seriously. It's pure BS. Why do you think they have never tried to get this published in a proper journal? It's a joke. An evidence free joke.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2016
Here is a timely reminder to people, brought to you by Anthony Peratt, formerly of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, somebody oft quoted by EU acolytes:

"The Plasma Universe and Plasma
Cosmology have no ties to the anti-
science blogsites of the holoscience
'electric universe'."

http://plasmauniverse.info/
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2016
To show just how far the EU lot have backpeddled during this mission, here are some 'predictions' from David Talbott, posted at ISF: http://www.intern...unt=2441

>likelihood of a hot and dry surface ("hot," as in the familiar lexicon of comet science)

Nope. Surface temperature was as expected for a dark body at the distance where the measurements were first taken.

>no layers of ice exposed beneath the surface, despite the requirements of standard theory

There were spectroscopic detections of ice at the surface. And it has also been seen at Tempel 1. And also seen below the surface by MIRO.

>no ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active

Wrong. Sublimation was seen from patches of ice coming out of shadow.

>electric discharge as the essential contributor to the comet's increasing activity.

Nope.

[cont....]
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2016
[cont.....]

>abundance of unexplained rocky debris on the surface, as seen on asteroids, including sharp edged boulders exhibiting no ices.

Plenty of debris, but nothing unexplainable about it. Irrelevant, and observed previously. Ice has been detected on some of the boulders.

>visible electrical erosion of the surface in the fashion of electrical etching of surface materials and electric discharge machining (edm)

Nope. Lol.

>surface electrochemically transformed and burned black by this discharge activity, as in laboratory experiments

Nope. More lols.

>focused glow discharge enigmatically moving across the surface during the course of the Rosetta observations

Nope. Hilarious.

>useful comparisons of this activity to the moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus

Nope, given that these are water plumes on Enceladus and volcanic eruptions on Io, and have nothing to do with electric woo.

[cont.....]
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2016
[cont.....]

>electric fields configuring and reconfiguring layers of dust on the surface, despite the absence of an atmosphere

Not that I've heard of, but electrostatic movement of dust is perfectly mainstream.

>removal of "astonishing," complex crystalline molecules from the surface, with comparisons to materials on planets and moons, likely including Mars or Earth, or both.

Not as yet.

>no appreciable "stardust," the long-presumed primeval matter of comets

Wrong. The low mass dust (~1 kg m^-3) is thought possibly to be primeval.

>no support for the long-presumed "compositional zoning" in textbook solar system history and comet theory

Wrong. As with other comets, it seems H2O and CO2 sublimate from different areas.

>useful comparison of dust configurations on the surface to formations seen in laboratory experiments with electric fields acting on layers of dust

Not even sure what he's on about here.

[cont.....]
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2016
It was sublimating ice.


From paper;
"One is that the gas during the outburst is coming from a source region on the nucleus with a significantly higher physical temperature than the normally sublimating regions."

It was sublimating ices, heated by a dark matter landslide?

Please address your claim "it's sublimating ices" "as expected", yet the data require "significantly higher temperature than the normally sublimating regions."

That is a contradiction.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2016
[cont......]

>x-ray and ultraviolet emissions exceeding any scientific predictions just 20 years ago

Not sure why the relevance to 20 years ago. It was a surprise when discovered around Hyakutake in 1996, but has been explained since by the charge exchange of heavy ions in the solar wind interacting with the coma. Known since at least 2004.

>evidence for electrochemical production of hydroxyl and/or water by electrical action on surface silicates and clays

Nope. Clays????

>evidence for production of water and/or hydroxyl by electrical activity in the coma

Nope.

>unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus

Yessss!! H- ions were seen. Nothing to do with electric woo, though.

>improbable hydrogen cloud gathered and held in place at the outer regions of the coma

Not yet seen around 67P, but I'm sure it will be. Not improbable at all. Water breaks down to H and O. Hence the cloud.

[cont....]
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2016
[cont......]

>relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts

Nope.

>additional electrochemical transactions in the coma adding to diverse chemistry, ranging from CO2 to methane, alcohol, cyanide, and more.

Nope, they sublimate from the surface.

jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2016
@cantthink,

Please address your claim "it's sublimating ices" "as expected", yet the data require "significantly higher temperature than the normally sublimating regions."

That is a contradiction.


No, it isn't. The temperatures of the gas as measured at the s/c were ~ 30 K higher than would normally be expected from regular sublimation, as previously seen. They offer a number of possibilities for this in the paper.

The temperatures required for H2O ice to sublimate (150 K) were well exceeded in February. They are not saying that higher temperatures were needed to sublimate the ice, just that the gas temp. was higher than expected. I can't recall what the surface temp. was in Feb., and I can't be bothered doing the maths, but it would have been well above 150 K.

jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2016
OK, here we go; at 2.74 AU, on the way in, it was ~ 220 K. The outburst was at ~2.4 AU.

http://adsabs.har...1711625T
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2016
One thing about those Talbott predictions; I was astonished that he made them. Firstly, because they simply don't do that kind of thing. EU are usually a bit wishy washy, to give themselves wriggle room, so that they can later try to fit the observed data to their nebulous predictions. Secondly, that he did it on a forum where all things EU generally take a kicking. And thirdly, because I honestly didn't think he believed this stuff. I thought it was an ego trip; being a big man with a cult following, plus the sales of books and DVDs, etc. Don't know how much they make from that. Presumably, the 'science' (in the loosest possible sense of the word) came from Thornhill. Whether he believes it or not, I don't know. There were some schoolboy errors in it though, along with the usual obfuscation, misinterpretation, omissions and what seem like downright lies.
Suffice to say that Dave hasn't been back to explain how he thinks the predictions are going!
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2016
No, it isn't. The temperatures of the gas as measured at the s/c were ~ 30 K higher than would normally be expected from regular sublimation,

But you said;
It was sublimating ice.


Ok, you're right. It wasn't sublimating ices, it was "sublimating ices" that produced significantly higher temperatures than expected. Got it. What other definitions would you like to change? Besides acknowledging that you don't think an electron beam is not an electric discharge.

In summary, when discussing plasma processes with jonesdumb;
It's not electrochemistry, it's "electrochemistry".
It's not sputtering, it's "sputtering".
It's not electric discharge, it's "electric discharge".
It's not electron beams, it's "electron beams".

I know I'm leaving a few out, but it's easy to see the point.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2016
Oh FFS. How many times do you need this pointed out to you? If the temperature at which the ice sublimates is 180 K, then that is the initial temperature of the gas. If it is 250 K, then that is the initial temperature of the gas. Got it? The gas they saw was roughly 30 K higher than they had been measuring prior to this outburst. They give a number of reasons why that could happen, and this is far from the final paper on the outburst. The temperatures are not at a level that says it wasn't from sublimation. Electric woo, heating it to 1000 K would do that. It would also increase the gas velocity.
There is no evidence of electric woo.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2016
And your definition of electric discharge is so broad as to be technically useless. I think we all know what the prawns T & T were talking about, when they suggested that the jets seen at comets were an 'electric discharge'. Have we seen any evidence of that? Or any of the other scientifically illiterate nonsense they proposed? (see Talbott's predictions above). No, would be the answer to that. And yet their stupid acolytes still think this rubbish is tenable, despite 2 years at a comet, and various other cometary observations, showing them to still be in an evidence-free zone.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2016
And your definition of 'sputtering' is not that of what is used in an astrophysical sense. As I have told you, and provided links to, this is nothing to do with electric woo. Sputtering is caused by solar wind ions impacting the surface and releasing atoms from surface material.
http://www.aanda....-15.html for the umpteenth time.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2016
And to quote from somebody else regarding the EU definition of discharge: "EU basically wants to call anything that involves the motion of charges as a 'discharge', a definition so broad as to be technically useless. If moving charges is all that is required, chemical reactions, which alter electron orbital configurations, could also be called a 'discharge' process."
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/electric-comets-failures-of-electric.html

As I said, we all know what Wallace & Gromit were talking about.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2016
So, why don't we hear the latest from the electric comet brains trust? How are they getting H20 and other gases off of a comet, at very low temperature? Including between May 2015 and January 2016, when the SW was getting nowhere near the comet? What magical, unseen processes were at work, to make the ice (which they claimed wasn't there), turn into H2O vapour (which they claimed wasn't there; links available)? Not to mention various other species? Where is all the woo that Talbott predicted? Or is nobody listening to him any more?
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2016
And your definition of 'sputtering' is not that of what is used in an astrophysical sense.

The definition you gave looks an awful lot like sputtering, but for you it's "sputtering"... Got it
And your definition of electric discharge is so broad

It's not my definition, I pulled it from the Springer site, and linked it. You should probably get in touch with them and let them know they need to fix it.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2016
If anybody was in any doubt about what the Chuckle Brothers were talking about regarding jets:

"The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing "electrical discharge machining" (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets' observed filamentary arcs."

And, to show their scientific illiteracy:

"Highly energetic and focused jets explode from comets' nuclei. The jets exhibit narrowly confined filamentary structures over great distances, defying the expected behavior of neutral gases in a vacuum."

Totally failing to realise that it is sunlight reflecting of bloody dust grains that they are actually seeing! The sodding gas is invisible! It expands, as expected, as a cloud. As shown in Fig. 5 of this paper:
http://ntrs.nasa....5409.pdf

Idiots.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2016
And your definition of 'sputtering' is not that of what is used in an astrophysical sense.

The definition you gave looks an awful lot like sputtering, but for you it's "sputtering"... Got it
And your definition of electric discharge is so broad

It's not my definition, I pulled it from the Springer site, and linked it. You should probably get in touch with them and let them know they need to fix it.


Good. So we agree, sputtering is nothing to do with electric woo, just SW ions impacting surface material. Excellent, we're getting somewhere.
And, as I say, the discharges Wallace & Gromit were talking about were not that very broad (technically useless) definition. They were very precise.
http://webcache.g...mp;gl=uk
BurnBabyBurn
5 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2016
Captain Stumpy 4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2016

@cd
wait a minute....
you can't prove astrophysicists don't know plasma physics...
you can't prove your electric sun
you can't prove moon craters were formed by plasma discharge and not asteroids
you can't prove your grand canyon formation delusoin
you can't prove the breakup of D/1993 F2 was from plasma discharge...

you have yet to prove, using the scientific method, 95% (actually more) of the claims you make on PO that are based upon your delusional cult beliefs...

but now you want us to believe the above paper is "errantly interpreted" [sic] ????
you do realise what i am going to ask, right?

where is your evidence?


Why would you present peer reviewed papers when they are going to be lambasted as garbage, when you can take over a "physics site" and get endless debate and constant air time from "serious thinkers"? Without y'all they'd be physics cosplay on an obscure website.
BurnBabyBurn
5 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2016
Man, if you're going to serenade them, do it properly. (To Eagles' "Lyin' Eyes")

Pity trolls just seem to find out early
Where to troll their spew or mis-advise
A rich old man
With RealityCheck you don't have to think much
They can dress up in the talk and blow in style.

You can't hide yer lyin' eyes
And your cites are a thin disguise
Thought by now you realize
There ain't no way to hide your lying lies.

So it tells her it must get down for the evening
To torment an old friend who's acting nice
But she knows where it's goin' as it's leavin'
It's headed for the trollin' part of town.

You can't hide yer lyin' eyes
And your cites are a thin disguise
Thought by now you realize
There ain't no way to hide you're lying lies.

My, oh my, you sure know how to post things
You set up your socks, so carefully
Isn't funny how that new data didn't change things
You're still the same old crank you used to be.

You can't hide yer lyin' eyes...
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2016
No, it isn't. The temperatures of the gas as measured at the s/c were ~ 30 K higher than would normally be expected from regular sublimation,

But you said;
It was sublimating ice.


Ok, you're right. It wasn't sublimating ices, it was "sublimating ices" that produced significantly higher temperatures than expected. Got it. What other definitions would you like to change? Besides acknowledging that you don't think an electron beam is not an electric discharge.

In summary, when discussing plasma processes with jonesdumb;
It's not electrochemistry, it's "electrochemistry".
It's not sputtering, it's "sputtering".
It's not electric discharge, it's "electric discharge".
It's not electron beams, it's "electron beams".

I know I'm leaving a few out, but it's easy to see the point.

You are such a bore.
Even if you ever were right I would despise you.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 31, 2016
No, it isn't. The temperatures of the gas as measured at the s/c were ~ 30 K higher than would normally be expected from regular sublimation,

But you said;
It was sublimating ice.


Ok, you're right. It wasn't sublimating ices, it was "sublimating ices" that produced significantly higher temperatures than expected. Got it. What other definitions would you like to change? Besides acknowledging that you don't think an electron beam is not an electric discharge.

In summary, when discussing plasma processes with jonesdumb;
It's not electrochemistry, it's "electrochemistry".
It's not sputtering, it's "sputtering".
It's not electric discharge, it's "electric discharge".
It's not electron beams, it's "electron beams".

I know I'm leaving a few out, but it's easy to see the point.

You are such a bore.
Even if you ever were right I would despise you.


Harsh, but fair.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2016
Why would you present peer reviewed papers when they are going to be lambasted as garbage
@BurnBabyBurn
i don't do it for the idiot trolls... they will never believe anything that threatens their cult

i predominantly for the typical non-literate and/or non-science reader how to find real information versus the pseudoscience bullsh*t

here is yet another very good reason on why people should debunk trolls and pseudoscience morons:
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

if we allow pseudoscience to flourish or post indiscriminately without challenging them to provide equivalent evidence or evidence that is constrained by the scientific method then really bad ideas spread and proliferate and people then feel that because they've seen it before or that other people believe in it, it must be valid

jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2016
@Captain,
Precisely. And it is why they generally won't go to forums where they are liable to get some serious inquisition. All part of the recruiting drive. Post and go on forums with a character limit.
Which is why I was gobsmacked at Talbott's appearance on ISF. Goading him into his predictions, which will be immortalised forever, thanks to Wayback, was the best anti-recruiting vehicle for EU seen in a long time.
How can grown men believe such b*llocks? Their 2006 poster is also immortalised, and so full of scientific illiteracy, obfuscation, misrepresentation, omission and lies, that it really should act as a warning signal to anybody remotely silly enough to take up this flight of mythological fancy.
It probably won't, though. Plenty of stupid people out there.
BurnBabyBurn
1 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2016
When they get a POTUS in power, it won't be so prosaic any more.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2016
Good. So we agree, sputtering is nothing to do with electric woo, just SW ions impacting surface material. Excellent, we're getting somewhere.

You couldn't be more wrong, as usual. Yes, electric ions impacting the surface material. And yes, by definition given repeatedly above is electric discharge.
And to quote from somebody else regarding the EU definition of discharge: "EU basically wants to call anything that involves the motion of charges as a 'discharge'

Again;
"An electric discharge is the release and transmission of electricity in an applied electric field through a medium such as a gas. Several types of electric discharges occur naturally on Earth" (American Geophysical Union, 1986): 1.
Electric Discharge - Springer
link.springer.com/10.1007%2F978-3-642-11274-4_490

So, they merely acknowledge the actual definition accepted by the AGU, yet they are wrong. That's some kind of scientific logic you have there pal.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2016
@cd85
You don't see the difference between a discharge and solar wind
so any discussion with you is hopeless.
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2016
The definition you quote is not fool proof.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 01, 2016
@cd85
You don't see the difference between a discharge and solar wind
so any discussion with you is hopeless.


Or, as I quoted Tom Bridgman, further up, a chemical reaction! I repeat; the definition is so broad as to be technically useless! Ditto with sputtering.
Still, it is telling that they have to revert to such semantic gymnastics to try and justify the still evidence-free zone of the 'Electric comet'. Shows just how well that particular piece of lunacy is going. Amazing that nobody within EU was scientifically literate enough to see the problems with their nonsense prior to the mission, and actually point it out to them. It would have saved them a lot of embarrassment.
T & T: "They aren't seeing water; it's OH!"
Despite us having 20 years worth of unambiguous detections of H2O at comets prior to them writing that particular lie. And nobody picked it up within EU! Due to either not reading or not understanding the previous literature on comets. As with Cantthink.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2016
@cd85
You don't see the difference between a discharge and solar wind
so any discussion with you is hopeless.
The solar wind is an electric current flowing from the Sun within the Sun's electric field, by definition and electric discharge. The hopelessness is you who is incapable of accepting basic facts.
What is absolutely technically useless is your knowledge and your terminology of woo.
The terminology "electric discharge" is a general term, under which there are more specific terms to describe specific phenomena.
From wiki;
"Electric discharge describes any flow of electric charge through a gas, liquid or solid. Electric discharges include:
Brush discharge
Dielectric barrier discharge
Corona discharge
Electric glow discharge
Electric arc
Electrostatic discharge
Electric discharge in gases
Leader (spark)
Partial discharge
Streamer discharge
Vacuum arc
Townsend discharge"
Lest we not forget sputtering.
Not sure why this is above your head.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2016
And your definition of 'sputtering' is not that of what is used in an astrophysical sense.
Although it's understood astrophysicists use their own lexicon to separate their fanciful thought experiments from real science, their definition of sputtering is no different than here on Earth.

https://en.m.wiki...uttering

See, energetic particles impacting surfaces to eject or implant matter. And yes, since it describes the flow of electric charges it is in fact an electric discharge. Or in your technical ineptitude, woo...
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2016
You are such a bore.
Even if you ever were right I would despise you.

First, transmission medium.
Secondly, I could give a rat's ass whether you like me or not.
Thirdly, I thought we had an agreement that you would keep me on ignore. Please honor that and tap that option to "ignore user" and piss off.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2016
Referring to "§3.1 Time relation of the data", the first indication of the outburst came from observing an increase in brightness using the Wide Angle Camera at 9:40. There was actually a significant *reduction* in electron density detected starting at 9:38. It wasn't until ~9:42 that the electron density started to increase (when the spacecraft negative potential was at -15V, after which the negative potential increased to ~ -20V by ~10:20, closely following the measured increase in electron density during the outburst) [Ref]. Evidently lightning bolts in outer space are slow and invisible, and no one can hear the thunder.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2016
@cd85
Transmission medium can anything: vacuum, honey, air, apple compote, plasma, dry wood.
Are you now claiming that any transport of any mix of charged particles is a discharge?
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2016
Lest we not forget sputtering.

You added sputtering yourself, that is not a discharge.
Solar wind is also missing: not a discharge.
Solar wind is not caused by a voltage difference with some extremely tiny comet.
You are entertaining a ludicrous idea and it gets to be boring.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2016
Lest we not forget sputtering.

You added sputtering yourself, that is not a discharge.
Solar wind is also missing: not a discharge.
Solar wind is not caused by a voltage difference with some extremely tiny comet.
You are entertaining a ludicrous idea and it gets to be boring.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2016
@cd85
Transmission medium can anything: vacuum, honey, air, apple compote, plasma, dry wood.
Are you now claiming that any transport of any mix of charged particles is a discharge?
Of course he does, and worse, he calls it a current and then gets all Maxwellian and totally anti-Newtonian, anti-gravity, and anti-astrophysics altogether.

How 'bout it, CD85? Where in any of the Rosetta data do you see a lightning bolt, and where did it strike from?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 01, 2016
Lest we not forget sputtering.


You are entertaining a ludicrous idea and it gets to be boring.


It gets to be PATHETIC!!! Perhaps cantthink can tell us how this 'electric comet' sh*te is getting on? As compared to the 2006 poster by the Chuckle Brothers? And as Dave 'Mythology' Talbott laid out in his predictions on ISF?
To save anybody looking; it is still an evidence-free zone. Isn't it cd? Yes, or no? Have we seen any of these arc discharges? EDM? Yes, or no? Any sort of electric woo whatsoever?
No, he'd rather argue about terms that no practising scientist uses for various phenomena, than deal with the reality that he followed a couple of CON MEN into believing a bunch of scientifically illiterate sh*te. Eh? Embarrassed much?
I'm happy to post T & T's errors, lies etc, re their 2006 poster again. Talbott's predictions are above.
And some people think this is science!!!!!
YOU GOT CONNED. End of story. Idiot.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 01, 2016
So, an electrical engineer (allegedly), with a Phd (allegedly), and a mythologist (definitely), suddenly decide that the hundreds, possibly thousands, of scientists who have ever worked on cometary observations, including missions, are ALL WRONG! How do they start this kick up the arse for contemporary cometary science? "IT'S NOT H2O, IT'S OH!" Effing lol. 20 years of UNAMBIGUOUS detections of H2O preceded that SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE statement. WHY DID THEY GET IT SO WRONG? So tell us, CANTTHINK; why do you follow these CRETINS? What about MISTAKING DUST FOR NEUTRAL GAS? How THICK do you need to be to do that? Why would anybody follow these CON MEN? What is your excuse? Are you as STUPID as them?
I have posted stuff like this on numerous forums, over numerous years; the IDIOTS can never answer.
IDIOTS.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 01, 2016
Come on, 'fess up cd85; you thought you knew a bit about plasma; you thought you knew a bit about Alfven - until I had to point it out to you that you didn't know as much about Alfven as you thought you did! That must have been embarrassing, eh? A 'mainstreamer' with more papers and quotes from Alfven, to show that what you were saying he said was actually bollocks?
Remind us - did Alfven say MHD was OK to use for a cometary coma? Or an ionosphere? Did he essentially back Biermann's MHD model for a 'contact surface'? Did he ever query the Halley discovery of a diamagnetic cavity? Or those of AMPTE? Did he ever say "No...this is a double layer"?
Huh?
I'd stick to mythology if I were you.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2016
You added sputtering yourself, that is not a discharge.

The level of ignorance among you people is absolutely astonishing. Here we are discussing the definitions of what should be well understood terminology of well developed physics that of which we use daily.
http://mysite.du....schg.htm
Hmmm, what do you know, sputtering is considered a former of glow discharge. Isn't that special...
https://www.googl...P_UlkifA
Transmission medium can anything: vacuum, honey, air, apple compote, plasma, dry wood.
Electric charges have to be carried by matter, other than a vacuum all can do so. Maybe you can explain that which isn't a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma?
BTW, this from wiki;
"Electric discharge describes any flow of electric charge through a gas, liquid or solid."
Any flow, those are not *my* words. I'm just relying on defined words.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2016
So basically everything that occurred before, during, and after the outburst is all electric discharge. The brighter a comet gets, the more electric discharge is occurring. That not only explains everything, it's also quite convenient. Your work here is done, CD85, good job.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2016
So, an electrical engineer (allegedly), with a Phd (allegedly), and a mythologist (definitely), suddenly decide that the hundreds, possibly thousands, of scientists who have ever worked on cometary observations, including missions, are ALL WRONG! How do they start this kick up the arse for contemporary cometary science? "IT'S NOT H2O, IT'S OH!" Effing lol. 20 years of UNAMBIGUOUS detections of H2O preceded that SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE statement. WHY DID THEY GET IT SO WRONG? So tell us, CANTTHINK; why do you follow these CRETINS? What about MISTAKING DUST FOR NEUTRAL GAS? How THICK do you need to be to do that? Why would anybody follow these CON MEN? What is your excuse? Are you as STUPID as them?
I have posted stuff like this on numerous forums, over numerous years; the IDIOTS can never answer.
IDIOTS.

I THINK WE HAVE A NEW CANDIDATE FOR CAP'N CAPSLOCK! Don't worry Cap'n Stoopid, you'll always be the Captain of the Stoopids.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2016
Solar wind is not caused by a voltage difference with some extremely tiny comet.

Wow, that moronic statement was necessary for what reason? The voltage differential is between the Sun and the surrounding plasma of the Local Interstellar Cloud in which it is immersed.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2016
So, an electrical engineer (allegedly), with a Phd (allegedly),

The alleged Phd holding EE's bio;
Donald E. Scott received the Bachelor's and Master's degrees from the Univer-
sity of Connecticut, Storrs, and the Ph.D. degree from Worcester Polytechnic
Institute, Worcester, MA, all in electrical engineering.
He was with General Electric (LSTG) in Schenectady, NY, and Pittsfield,
MA (Lightning Arrester Division). From 1959 to 1998, he was a member
of the faculty of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst...He is the author of An
Introduction To Circuit Analysis—A Systems Approach (McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1987).

Who are you but some old coot relying on 70 year old physics we know from experiments to be wrong.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2016
So basically everything that occurred before, during, and after the outburst is all electric discharge. The brighter a comet gets, the more electric discharge is occurring. That not only explains everything, it's also quite convenient.

Yes, the intensity of the discharge is relative to the available charges/ voltage. This is why the intensity of the discharge increases as it approaches the inner solar system where the charge density/voltage of the SW is higher than the outer solar system where the comet's spend most of their time.
And yes, it quite conveniently agrees with known electric discharge physics which includes circuit and modern plasma theory.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2016
So, an electrical engineer (allegedly), with a Phd (allegedly)


And you know damn well I was talking about the idiot Thornhill.

As for Scott; like me to quote the qualifications of the people who, over the years, have said his electric Sun idea is complete bobbins?

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2016
The alleged Phd holding EE's bio;........


Yep, another EE. Where are the years spent studying astrophysics? Perhaps that's why he didn't realise that the current to power his electric Sun has never been seen. And would have been, by now.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2016
I THINK WE HAVE A NEW CANDIDATE FOR CAP'N CAPSLOCK! Don't worry Cap'n Stoopid, you'll always be the Captain of the Stoopids.


No, I did that in the vain hope that you might notice the points/ questions, and explain to us why you still believe in this evidence-free scientifically illiterate crankery?
Not going to happen, I see.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2016
Yes, the intensity of the discharge is relative to the available charges/ voltage. This is why the intensity of the discharge increases as it approaches the inner solar system where the charge density/voltage of the SW is higher than the outer solar system where the comet's spend most of their time.


What change in voltage are we talking about? Where has this been measured? Rosetta has been following the comet for over 6AU. Coming in and heading out. Should have seen it by now. Why is the comet at its most active at perihelion? After all, this should be the time when it is moving through less of a change in this imagined voltage. And also happens to coincide with a 7-8 month period when the SW is getting nowhere even close to the cometary nucleus. What is causing the comet to outgas like a bastard, when the SW is getting nowhere near it? As measured.
Sorry, just mythology based, evidence-free claptrap. Which is why nobody takes it seriously.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2016
"Electric discharge describes any flow of electric charge through a gas, liquid or solid."
Any flow, those are not *my* words. I'm just relying on defined words.


And, for the umpteenth time, this is not the definition of discharge Wallace & Gromit were talking about. They want impossible arc discharges, causing EDM (at a comet! Lol).

And the sputtering is not causing any sort of glow at 67P. And only happens when the SW has access to the surface. And is miniscule.

And your 2nd link doesn't work. The first one says nothing about sputtering being a glow discharge. Merely that it is a by-product of a glow discharge. It is also a by-product of firing a Helium plasma at rock. Nothing glows.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 14, 2016
Don't worry ...Captain of the Stoopids
@cant-think
Wow, that moronic statement was necessary for what reason?
just because you can't actually abide by or follow the scientific method you claim everyone who does is "stoopid"?
yup - epic fail
strike 1

protip- if it doesn't follow the scientific method then it aint science
(and the eu doesn't)
The alleged Phd
argument from authority is always trumped by the evidence (like what is known in the SM)

attempting argument from authority proves you can't find evidence to support your claims & cult
strike 2
relying on 70 year old physics
1- science always moves forward with new evidence: you know, like this- http://www.pppl.g...nnection

whereas you refuse to accept it based on?
yup. an outdated "quote" that was proven wrong

2- you refuse to believe the 100K plus experiments because of an outdated quote & you claim physics is wrong because it's been validated for decades?
LMFAO

strike 3

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.