The true power of the solar wind

June 12, 2018, Vienna University of Technology
Extremely fast particles from the sun hit Mercury. Credit: NASA, montage: TU Wien

The planets and moons of our solar system are continuously being bombarded by particles hurled away from the sun. On Earth this has hardly any effect, apart from the fascinating northern lights, because the dense atmosphere and the magnetic field of the Earth protect us from these solar wind particles. But on the Moon or on Mercury things are different: There, the uppermost layer of rock is gradually eroded by the impact of sun particles.

New results of the TU Wien now show that previous models of this process are incomplete. The effects of solar wind bombardment are in some cases much more drastic than previously thought. These findings are important for the ESA mission BepiColombo, Europe's first Mercury mission. The results have now been published in the planetology journal Icarus.

An exosphere of shattered rock

"The solar wind consists of charged —mainly hydrogen and helium ions, but heavier atoms up to iron also play a role," explains Prof. Friedrich Aumayr from the Institute of Applied Physics at TU Wien. These particles hit the rocks at a speed of 400 to 800 km per second and the impact can eject numerous other atoms. These particles can rise high before they fall back to the surface, creating an "exosphere" around the Moon or Mercury—an extremely thin atmosphere of atoms sputtered from the surface rocks by solar wind bombardment.

This exosphere is of great interest for space research because its composition allows scientists to deduce the chemical composition of the surface—and it is much easier to analyse the exosphere than to land a spacecraft on the surface. In October 2018, ESA will send the BepiColombo probe to Mercury, which is to obtain information about the geological and chemical properties of Mercury from the composition of the exosphere.

Paul Szabo in the lab at TU Wien. Credit: Vienna University of Technology

Charge matters

However, this requires a precise understanding of the effects of the solar wind on the rock surfaces, and this is precisely where decisive gaps in knowledge still exist. Therefore, the TU Wien investigated the effect of ion bombardment on wollastonite, a typical moon rock. "Up to now it was assumed that the kinetic energy of the fast particles is primarily responsible for atomization of the rock surface," says Paul Szabo, Ph.D. student in Friedrich Aumayr's team and first author of the current publication. "But this is only half the truth: we were able to show that the high electrical charge of the particles plays a decisive role. It is the reason that the particles on the surface can do much more damage than previously thought."

When the particles of the solar wind are multiply charged, i.e. when they lack several electrons, they carry a large amount of energy which is released in a flash on impact. "If this is not taken into account, the effects of the solar on various rocks are misjudged," says Paul Szabo. Therefore, it is not possible to draw exact conclusions about the surface rocks with an incorrect model from the composition of the exosphere.

Herbert Biber, Paul Szabo, Friedrich Aumayr, Reinhard Stadlmayr, Daniel Mayer (left to right). Credit: Vienna University of Technology

Protons make up by far the largest part of the , and so it was previously thought that they had the strongest influence on the rock. But as it turns out, helium actually plays the main role because, unlike protons, it can be charged twice as positively. And the contribution of heavier ions with an even greater must not be neglected either.

A cooperation of different research groups was necessary for these findings: High-precision measurements were carried out with a specifically developed microbalance at the Institute of Applied Physics. At the Vienna Scientific Cluster VSC-3 complex computer simulations with codes developed for nuclear fusion research were carried out in order to be able to interpret the results correctly. The Analytical Instrumentation Center and the Institute for Chemical Technologies and Analytics of the TU Vienna also made important contributions.

Explore further: Researchers simulate how 'coherent structures' affect solar wind heating

More information: Paul S. Szabo et al. Solar Wind Sputtering of Wollastonite as a Lunar Analogue Material – Comparisons between Experiments and Simulation, Icarus (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.05.028

Related Stories

Mercury's magnetosphere fends off the solar wind

January 30, 2008

The planet Mercury's magnetic field appears to be strong enough to fend off the harsh solar wind from most of its surface, according to data gathered in part by a University of Michigan instrument onboard NASA's MESSENGER ...

Leaky atmosphere linked to lightweight planet

February 9, 2018

The Red Planet's low gravity and lack of magnetic field makes its outermost atmosphere an easy target to be swept away by the solar wind, but new evidence from ESA's Mars Express spacecraft shows that the Sun's radiation ...

The stability of the solar wind

June 20, 2016

NASA's Wind spacecraft observes the solar wind before it impacts the magnetosphere of Earth. Launched in 1994 into an orbit more than two hundred Earth-radii away, one of Wind's prime objectives is to investigate the basic ...

MESSENGER data paints new picture of Mercury's magnetic field

September 30, 2011

A University of British Columbia geophysicist is part of a NASA mission that is analyzing the first sets of data being collected by MESSENGER as it orbits Mercury. The spacecraft is capturing new evidence that challenges ...

Recommended for you

A new classification scheme for exoplanet sizes

September 24, 2018

There are about 4433 exoplanets in the latest catalogs. Their radii have generally been measured by knowing the radius of their host star and then closely fitting the lightcurves as the planet transits across the face of ...

First to red planet will become Martians: Canada astronaut

September 22, 2018

Astronauts traveling through space on the long trip to Mars will not have the usual backup from mission control on Earth and will need to think of themselves as Martians to survive, Canada's most famous spaceman half-jokingly ...

Three NASA missions return first-light data

September 21, 2018

NASA's continued quest to explore our solar system and beyond received a boost of new information this week with three key missions proving not only that they are up and running, but that their science potential is exceptional. ...

210 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2018
"Up to now it was assumed that the kinetic energy of the fast particles is primarily responsible for atomization of the rock surface....But this is only half the truth: we were able to show that the high electrical charge of the particles plays a decisive role. It is the reason that the particles on the surface can do much more damage than previously thought."

Whaaaaat? Electric discharge sputtering plays a "decisive role"? ROTFLMAO!
jonesdumb? jooonesduuuumb?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2018
Therefore, it is not possible to draw exact conclusions about the surface rocks with an incorrect model from the composition of the exosphere.

This is relevant to all bodies in space. As a matter of fact the electric charge of the solar wind is also relevant to how it interacts with plasma structures is space such as magnetospheres and cometary comas and such. The electric charge of these particles is of decisive role there too. We live in an Electric Universe.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2018
Protons make up by far the largest part of the solar wind, and so it was previously thought that they had the strongest influence

So wait a minute here, jonesdumb always claims there are equal numbers of protons and electrons? "By far" implies an imbalance. Who'da thunk it?
But as it turns out, helium actually plays the main role because, unlike protons, it can be charged twice as positively. And the contribution of heavier ions with an even greater electrical charge must not be neglected either.

But it has been for years, on all bodies including comets and others. This neglected aspect is the explanation for the energetic cathode jets observed on comets.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2018
On Earth this has hardly any effect, apart from the fascinating northern lights, because the dense atmosphere and the magnetic field of the Earth protect us from these solar wind particles.

This is false, there is the SW modulation of lightning. On Mars, these types of particles are likely responsible for the planet-wide dust storms. Similarly, charged particles in the electric currents at the gas giants are responsible for the erosion observed on their moons, Io, Enceladus, Europa, etc...
barakn
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2018
Protons make up by far the largest part of the solar wind, and so it was previously thought that they had the strongest influence

So wait a minute here, jonesdumb always claims there are equal numbers of protons and electrons? "By far" implies an imbalance. Who'da thunk it?

There isn't an imbalance. They misspoke, probably not realizing that dolts and simpletons would parse every sentence and try to shoehorn it into their false narratives. The statement should have read "Protons make up by far the largest part of the ions in the solar wind, and so it was previously thought that they had the strongest influence."
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2018
New results of the TU Wien now show that previous models of this process are incomplete. The effects of solar wind bombardment are in some cases much more drastic than previously thought.

Funny how experimentally based knowledge of the Sun's plasma environment is so much less interesting to folks than the fanciful faerie tales of BH's and other pseudoscientific claptrap.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2018
The statement should have read "Protons make up by far the largest part of the ions in the solar wind, and so it was previously thought that they had the strongest influence."

LOL! Apologist...What else did they misrepresent in the article? Next you'll say these are false results or they knew it all along anyway.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2018
But it has been for years, on all bodies including comets and others. This neglected aspect is the explanation for the energetic cathode jets observed on comets.


Lol. No cathode jets seen, none detected, and the solar wind isn't reaching the comet at its most active. As measured.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2018
So wait a minute here, jonesdumb always claims there are equal numbers of protons and electrons? "By far" implies an imbalance. Who'da thunk it?


There are, you idiot. However, they are not interested in the electrons in this study. They don't cause sputtering - ions do. If we have a solar wind comprising 1 H+ ion, and 1 He++ ion, then there will be 3 electrons to balance the charge. Understand? Go look at the ACE data. It isn't rocket science.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2018
There isn't an imbalance. They misspoke, probably not realizing that dolts and simpletons would parse every sentence and try to shoehorn it into their false narratives. The statement should have read "Protons make up by far the largest part of the ions in the solar wind, and so it was previously thought that they had the strongest influence."


Correct, of course, as (nearly) everybody knows. CD is just doing the usual EU obfuscation job of misunderstanding an article, rather than reading the paper, where they say (as if we didn't already know):

About 93% of the solar wind ***ions*** are made up by protons and therefore, sputtering of wollastonite.....


The press release could have been written by a biology major, for all we know.

jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2018
........pseudoscientific claptrap.


https://www.thund...saur.htm

Lol.
691Boat
5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
........pseudoscientific claptrap.


https://www.thund...saur.htm

Lol.

I'm guessing they have proven plasma-based gravity in the lab, right? hahaha!
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2018
On Earth this has hardly any effect, apart from the fascinating northern lights, because the dense atmosphere and the magnetic field of the Earth protect us from these solar wind particles.

This is false, there is the SW modulation of lightning. On Mars, these types of particles are likely responsible for the planet-wide dust storms. Similarly, charged particles in the electric currents at the gas giants are responsible for the erosion observed on their moons, Io, Enceladus, Europa, etc...


Mostly fabrication. Dust devils on Mars have nothing to do with the solar wind. And neither has it got anything to do with Enceladus, Europa or Io.
691Boat
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2018
On Earth this has hardly any effect, apart from the fascinating northern lights, because the dense atmosphere and the magnetic field of the Earth protect us from these solar wind particles.

This is false, there is the SW modulation of lightning. On Mars, these types of particles are likely responsible for the planet-wide dust storms. Similarly, charged particles in the electric currents at the gas giants are responsible for the erosion observed on their moons, Io, Enceladus, Europa, etc...


Oh good! Please link current solar wind data to the dust storm happening on Mars right now. thanks in advance!
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
Oh good! Please link current solar wind data to the dust storm happening on Mars right now. thanks in advance!

The Grand Master of the Strawman Society interjects. I was clear in my comment I was discussing the charged particles and the unaccounted effects as described above. It is not purely kinetic interaction, the "woo" jonesdumb claims is impossible has a "decisive role" in these effects.
691Boat
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2018
Oh good! Please link current solar wind data to the dust storm happening on Mars right now. thanks in advance!

The Grand Master of the Strawman Society interjects. I was clear in my comment I was discussing the charged particles and the unaccounted effects as described above. It is not purely kinetic interaction, the "woo" jonesdumb claims is impossible has a "decisive role" in these effects.

So......solar wind is full of charged particles......
charged particles apparently cause dust storms on Mars......
there is currently a massive dust storm happening on Mars......
Got any data for an excess of charged particles on Mars right now? Seems that per your years of spewing non-scientific statements, it would make sense that the charged particles which cause these dust storms would come from our electric universe, meaning the solar wind.
A large dust storm on Mars, should be easily linked to a large flare of some sort, right?
691Boat
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2018
Or is a strawman in your opinion simply because you know deep down that there is absolutely ZERO proof that charged particles cause dust storms on Mars? You know you are full of it, and yet you keep spewing out pure garbage with absolutely no backing.

I did like the plasma-caused gravity story about the dinosaurs, though. Really fun bedtime story.
theredpill
3.5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2018
"then there will be 3 electrons to balance the charge. Understand? Go look at the ACE data. It isn't rocket science."
I have never observed anything in the ACE data stating the above.

https://www.swpc....lar-wind

Considering the mass differential between the particles and the speeds at which they move relative to each other, the term "balanced charge" doesn't apply to a plasma unless you enclose all of it....it is what it is and moves how it moves due to charge differential/velocity differential of its components , not charge balance.

But if it is there please link it. Also, please do not take this post as any kind of endorsement of Cantdrives conclusions. I do not believe the sun is a pinch or that electrical currents generate all of the magnetic fields in space, on earth or anywhere. I believe in the clearly defined (via experiment) properties of particles and the data we obtain from the observations we make and measurements we take. ..not "woo".
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2018
I very much doubt that much, if any, of the solar wind is reaching Mars' surface. Just as we see at a comet at high activity, the solar wind is excluded. Given that Mars has a pretty thick atmosphere (compared to a comet), then it would likely behave the same way, building up an induced magnetosphere. The dust devils will be due to the same mechanism as on Earth. Rising parcels of hot air, entraining dust.
theredpill
2.8 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2018
That said, I bare no ill will to you Cantdrive...when you are right and the science supports you I rate your comments 5's just like I do everyone elses. When you and JonesDave argue you guys end up making each other appear less intelligent than I believe both of you to be. At some point you guys actually start to debate against observed data due to the malice between you. I seriously doubt that is what brought either of you here and I am not trying to preach...just observing.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
Considering the mass differential between the particles and the speeds at which they move relative to each other, the term "balanced charge" doesn't apply to a plasma unless you enclose all of it....it is what it is and moves how it moves due to charge differential/velocity differential of its components , not charge balance.


The solar wind is quasi-neutral. It is neutral over any length greater than the Debye length. About 10m in the solar wind. The solar wind electrons balance the ions. There will be slightly more electrons, as 7% of the ions are multiply charged. It travels at pretty much the same speed for both + & - charges. This should require no linking, as it is first year undergrad (or maybe high school) stuff. However, I'll dig some up if you need convincing. This has been measured for many decades by many spacecraft.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2018
when you are right and the science supports you I rate your comments 5's......


I guess I missed those comments!
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2018
" It travels at pretty much the same speed for both + & - charges."

Opposing charges moving at the same velocity in the same direction does not generate a magnetic field...as the solar wind carries an intrinsic magnetic field the particle motion within the wind must generate and reinforce this intrinsic field. Slightly beyond first year undergrad or highschool but numerous studies which I can link if needed have tried to pin down why the particles accelerate and remain heated as they propagate within the SW. Most site the motion of the particles as this mechanism.

"The solar wind is quasi-neutral."

This is the same as stating that a room that is -450F in some spots and +520F in others is Quasi-room temperature...stand in either spot and you may debate that assertion.

theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2018
"I guess I missed those comments!"

Well, there are none here because of the way he chose to comment (essentially thumbing his nose at you) when the science in the article supports a portion of his favored theory...but this article does support charge loading and temporary field generation on surfaces in space without protective atmospheres when interacting with the solar wind.

RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
@theredpill.
That said, I bare no ill will to you Cantdrive...when you are right and the science supports you I rate your comments 5's just like I do everyone elses. When you and JonesDave argue you guys end up making each other appear less intelligent than I believe both of you to be. At some point you guys actually start to debate against observed data due to the malice between you.
I can't tell you how amazing, delighting, heartening it is to come across fairminded, balanced, objective observers on the net other than myself. Kudos @theredpill!

I too observed recently, re @jonesdave-vs-@cantdrive85 'feuding':
...the 'self-sorting' and 'self-reinforcing' feedback which chaotically arise, evolve and subside within such phenomena. Please can we now have less of the longstanding personal silliness, and more of objective and courteous discussion of the reality unfolding under the noses of 'both one-eyed sides' in these petty feuds? Be the better person/scientist,..
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2018
" It travels at pretty much the same speed for both + & - charges."

Opposing charges moving at the same velocity in the same direction does not generate a magnetic field...as the solar wind carries an intrinsic magnetic field the particle motion within the wind must generate and reinforce this intrinsic field. Slightly beyond first year undergrad or highschool but numerous studies which I can link if needed have tried to pin down why the particles accelerate and remain heated as they propagate within the SW. Most site the motion of the particles as this mechanism.

"The solar wind is quasi-neutral."

This is the same as stating that a room that is -450F in some spots and +520F in others is Quasi-room temperature...stand in either spot and you may debate that assertion.



Wrong. Idiot.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
For the seriously hard of thinking; what is the Debye length in the solar wind, and why does it matter? Idiots. What is the measured velocity of solar wind ions? Idiots. What is the measured velocity of solar wind electrons? Idiots. Guess why EU loons are thick? Because plasma physics is waaaaaay beyond them. And is obviously beyond this loon theredpill. Eh? Anybody disagree? Let's see the evidence.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
I can't tell you how amazing, delighting, heartening it is to come across fairminded, balanced, objective observers on the net other than myself. Kudos @theredpill!


Mate, you've got the IQ of a badger. Who gives a toss what you think?
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2018
Opposing charges moving at the same velocity in the same direction does not generate a magnetic field...


Oh dear. Solar wind really isn't your area, is it dear? Lol. Look up 'IMF', you loon, before you start spouting absolute crap on here. Yes?
What exactly are you qualified in? It sure as hell isn't plasma physics, is it love? Bricklaying, perhaps? Not another electrical engineer? No?. Do please tell us what you are good at. It sure as hell isn't science. Eh?

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2018
@jonesdave.

Mate, you seriously need to control your hostility; it's making you look and sound 'unstable' as well as 'one eyed' on the science.

Regarding the latter in particular, you should take time out to read up and 'update' your stance re Solar Wind COMPLEXITY in both constituents and flow-dynamics.

Now calm down, and consider:

We KNOW that chaotic turbulence in ANY 'free fluid flow' leads inevitably to VORTICITY and flow 'substructures/features' within the main 'body' of any such free-flowing fluid. NOW consider further the PLASMA behavior/forces that MAGNIFY such 'vorticity' and 'substructure' phenomena/features. Then realize therefore that SW is NOT some 'laminar flow' situation (as you seem to be basing your arguments on); but rather a hugely chaotic, turbulent flow creating all sorts of VIOLENT/FAST digressions from laminar flow that make the idea of a "Debye length" and other NAIVE/SIMPLISTIC attributions largely inapplicable therein. It's complex, mate. :)
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
Mate, you seriously need to control your hostility;....


No, we need seriously less nutjobs on here. And that includes you. Bugger off, there's a good chap, eh?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
We KNOW that chaotic turbulence in ANY 'free fluid flow' leads inevitably to VORTICITY and flow 'substructures/features' within the main 'body' of any such free-flowing fluid. NOW consider further the PLASMA behavior/forces that MAGNIFY such 'vorticity' and 'substructur............... blah, blah.....


Dafuq is that about? Seriously? Only a loon could have written that crap. I'm none the wiser. Anybody else with a science degree that wants to explain it to me?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
"I guess I missed those comments!"

Well, there are none here because of the way he chose to comment (essentially thumbing his nose at you) when the science in the article supports a portion of his favored theory...but this article does support charge loading and temporary field generation on surfaces in space without protective atmospheres when interacting with the solar wind.



WTF is 'charge loading'? Are you still at school, by any chance?
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2018
......when the science in the article supports a portion of his favored theory...


OK, dear, which part would that be? Hmmmmm?
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
@jonesdave.
Mate, you seriously need to control your hostility
No, we need seriously less nutjobs on here. And that includes you. Bugger off, there's a good chap, eh?
Unreasoning hostility interferes with calm and dispassionate scientific discourse, mate. Curb it.
We KNOW that chaotic turbulence in ANY 'free fluid flow' leads inevitably to VORTICITY and flow 'substructures/features' within the main 'body' of any such free-flowing fluid. NOW consider further the PLASMA behavior/forces that MAGNIFY such 'vorticity' and 'substructure....blah, blah.
Only a loon could have written that crap. I'm none the wiser. Anybody else with a science degree that wants to explain it to me?
It's the known behavior/science of Hydrodynamics and Magneto/Electro-Hydrodynamics fluid flows/features etc that competent researchers in such fields would comprehend readily. That you haven't any idea, tells you are not competent in such; and underlies your obtuseness/insults.

Calm.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
It's the known behavior/science of Hydrodynamics and Magneto/Electro-Hydrodynamics fluid flows/features etc that competent researchers in such fields would comprehend readily. That you haven't any idea, tells you are not competent in such; and underlies your obtuseness/insults.


Bullshit. Links please, woo boy. WTF would you know about MHD? And what does it say about the solar wind? And what do measurements of the solar wind tell us? Got anything of note to say? Nope. In which case, as I said, do please bugger off. You are contributing nothing, due to being scientifically illiterate. Correct?

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2018
@jonesdave.
It's the known behavior/science of Hydrodynamics and Magneto/Electro-Hydrodynamics fluid flows/features etc that competent researchers in such fields would comprehend readily. That you haven't any idea, tells you are not competent in such; and underlies your obtuseness/insults.
Bullshit. Links please, woo boy. WTF would you know about MHD? And what does it say about the solar wind? And what do measurements of the solar wind tell us? Got anything of note to say? Nope. In which case, as I said, do please bugger off. You are contributing nothing, due to being scientifically illiterate. Correct?
Jd, mate, you're letting yourself down with such trite 'challenges', remarks instead of spending more time and energy updating yourself in said fields so you wouldn't be driven to such defensive hostility and denial of what I have long been pointing out to both you and cantdrive re SW and other astro/cosmo plasma phenomena. Please calm down; and Rethinkitall. :)
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2018
OK, dear, which part would that be?

Electric discharge sputtering, as described above. Which you claimed is purely kinetic and is "settled science". Clearly it is not only kinetic but also includes the "decisive role" of electric discharge, especially from "multiply charged ions".
And it has many implications beyond the scope of this paper.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
OK, dear, which part would that be?

Electric discharge sputtering, as described above. Which you claimed is purely kinetic and is "settled science". Clearly it is not only kinetic but also includes the "decisive role" of electric discharge, especially from "multiply charged ions".
And it has many implications beyond the scope of this paper.


Really? What would they be, woo boy? Like comets that the solar wind isn't even reaching? Like the Martian surface that it isn't reaching? Like the plumes at Encaladus, caused by H2O outgassing? Do please expand on this woo. Preferably with some actual published science. By somebody that actually has a clue what they are talking about.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2018
@jonesdavaid fields so you wouldn't be driven to such defensive hostility and denial of what I have long been pointing out to both you and cantdrive re SW and other astro/cosmo plasma phenomena. Please calm down; and Rethinkitall. : yada, yada, yada............)


@RC; have I ever told you that you are a complete tosspot? If not, consider it done. Burke.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
OK, dear, which part would that be?

Electric discharge sputtering, as described above. Which you claimed is purely kinetic and is "settled science". Clearly it is not only kinetic but also includes the "decisive role" of electric discharge, especially from "multiply charged ions".
And it has many implications beyond the scope of this paper.


Sorry, I've read the paper, and the word 'discharge' occurs precisely zero times. Care to tell us where you made this up from?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
Clearly it is not only kinetic but also includes the "decisive role" of electric discharge, especially from "multiply charged ions".


Really, dear? Quote me the part of the paper that says that. I've read it. Have you?

RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
@jonesdave.
@jonesdavaid fields so you wouldn't be driven to such defensive hostility and denial of what I have long been pointing out to both you and cantdrive re SW and other astro/cosmo plasma phenomena. Please calm down; and Rethinkitall. : yada, yada, yada............)


@RC; have I ever told you that you are a complete tosspot? If not, consider it done. Burke.
Mate, your attitude/behavior is getting even worse than the 'cranks' you attack. That's not a good look for anyone pretending to be better than the 'cranks' he is attacking. Chill. :)
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2018
Mare, your attitude/behavior is getting even worse than the 'cranks' you attack. That's not a good look for anyone pretending to be better than the 'cranks' he is attacking. Chill. :)


Really, love? Let's have a vote, eh? Anybody else think RC is a complete tosspot? You might be right. Maybe it's just me. I'm guessing not, though. Eh?
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
@jonesdave.
Mate, your attitude/behavior is getting even worse than the 'cranks' you attack. That's not a good look for anyone pretending to be better than the 'cranks' he is attacking. Chill. :)


Really, love? Let's have a vote, eh? Anybody else think RC is a complete tosspot? You might be right. Maybe it's just me. I'm guessing not, though. Eh?
Are you ok?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2018
@jonesdave.
Mate, your attitude/behavior is getting even worse than the 'cranks' you attack. That's not a good look for anyone pretending to be better than the 'cranks' he is attacking. Chill. :)


Really, love? Let's have a vote, eh? Anybody else think RC is a complete tosspot? You might be right. Maybe it's just me. I'm guessing not, though. Eh?
Are you ok?


I'm fine. Yep, just checked. Still got the same science degrees on the bookshelf that I had previously. Still got the same literature as I had previously. Haven't invented a TOE based on complete shite.
Yep, I think I'm good. How about yourself? Delusions of grandeur? Dunning-Kruger syndrome? There is help available, you know? Don't be afraid to ask.
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
The SW is reaching the surface of the comet for ~90% of the orbit. There is plenty of opportunity for charge loading of the comets to occur. And it occurs in a region where the Sun's electric field is weaker which results in a more intense discharge process as the comet approaches the Sun. This is why the comet glows, it's not a reflection. There are three modes of plasma, dark, glow, and arc. The solar wind is dark, comet comas are glow, the Sun is arc.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2018
@jonesdave.
I'm fine.
It's wise to get a second opinion, jd. Not from 'the gang'; but from a real, objective, observer with your best mental-health interests at heart.
Still got the same science degrees on the bookshelf...
The question is, how out-of-date is any of that, in light of more recent/correct mainstream discovery/review?
Haven't invented a TOE based on complete shite.
It prompts the question: Have you invented anything original at all? Or done anything useful to advance the fields under discussion?
How about yourself? Delusions of grandeur?
You are blithely unaware as to the breadth/depth of my original ideas/work in many fields, especially cosmology. As I posted to RNP in another thread:
go read this novel (for mainstream) gravitational theory article (alas they still haven't got it anywhere near correct/complete as I have):

https://arxiv.org...3155.pdf

Attentive longstanding members of PO will know what I'm talking about. :)
:)
yep
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2018
Jones Dumb is stuck in the last century and does not compute, data is only as good as the perspective you look at it from. He thinks math is empirical evidence and gravity is waving at us from the Big Bangs immaculate conception.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2018
The SW is reaching the surface of the comet for ~90% of the orbit. There is plenty of opportunity for charge loading of the comets to occur. And it occurs in a region where the Sun's electric field is weaker which results in a more intense discharge process as the comet approaches the Sun. This is why the comet glows, it's not a reflection. There are three modes of plasma, dark, glow, and arc. The solar wind is dark, comet comas are glow, the Sun is arc.


Lol. Nothing is getting charged, you loon. We landed two spacecraft on a comet. Zilch. Unless you think there is evidence to the contrary?
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2018
Jones Dumb is stuck in the last century and does not compute, data is only as good as the perspective you look at it from. He thinks math is empirical evidence and gravity is waving at us from the Big Bangs immaculate conception.


Sorry, woo boy? Which evidence are you using?
gculpex
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2018
Things I learned from Jonesdave:
The solar wind is not strong enough to affect the outer planets beyond earth,
Comets have shields as do planets but not asteroids,
The SW is completely quasi-neutral and has no effect
No one can meet the requirements to discuss anything with him
He is his own doctor/physician/psychologist and in perfect health
And I'm sure he is writing a paper for the Nobel prize on dark matter
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2018
And it occurs in a region where the Sun's electric field is weaker which results in a more intense discharge process as the comet approaches the Sun. This is why the comet glows, it's not a reflection.


What electric field? And what discharge would this be? Evidence, please. And yes, the 'glow' as you so inexpertly put it, is definitely from sunlight reflected from dust. Provably. No electric woo. This silly electric comet nonsense is only believed by complete wackos for a reason. It is dead. It was never actually alive.

jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2018
Things I learned from Jonesdave:
The solar wind is not strong enough to affect the outer planets beyond earth,
Comets have shields as do planets but not asteroids,
The SW is completely quasi-neutral and has no effect
No one can meet the requirements to discuss anything with him
He is his own doctor/physician/psychologist and in perfect health
And I'm sure he is writing a paper for the Nobel prize on dark matter


Glad you've learned something. Which parts of it would you like me to link to for the evidence of what I've said? Just say the word.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2018
And it occurs in a region where the Sun's electric field is weaker which results in a more intense discharge process as the comet approaches the Sun. This is why the comet glows, it's not a reflection.


And yet, amazingly, doesn't happen to asteroids! And don't give me that crap about elliptical orbits - there are many, many asteroids (or possibly dead comets) on more elliptical orbits than 67P. Why don't they succumb to this invisible woo?

jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2018
Jones Dumb is stuck in the last century and does not compute, data is only as good as the perspective you look at it from. He thinks math is empirical evidence and gravity is waving at us from the Big Bangs immaculate conception.


Empirical evidence? What, you mean this sort of thing?
https://www.thund...saur.htm
theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2018
"Wrong. Idiot."
Not according to cluster... you can save time and skip to the last paragraph in the link where they state the electrons are heated/accelerated (not the protons....meaning the velocities differ...as measured) or read the whole thing where they mention turbulence ( a faster/denser flow of a portion of a medium than the surrounding medium) several times.

http://sci.esa.in...-heated/

" plasma physics is waaaaaay beyond them. And is obviously beyond this loon theredpill."

Because of how ridiculous you are being to the other posters and myself, you appear nowhere near as intelligent as you think you are when a ten year old paper supports statements you think are wrong.
You don't have to be a physicist to comment here or in your case polite and/or open minded...but you don't need to be rude and abrasive either.
theredpill
1 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2018
"The Debye length is 10M"... a WIKI warrior statement made without considering it is a variable density plasma with turbulent regions where charge carrier density can double and effectively halve the Debye length in those regions. You talk about space as though it is a static environment where once something is measured in any region it retains that value for eternity. "Charge loading" is a term I have heard used to indicate an increasing density of surface charge on any object...although it may not appear in astrophysics textbooks it is a pretty self explanatory term and is clearly applicable to the surfaces mentioned in the above article.

JonesDaves comments are typical of someone whose faith is gradually being exposed as unwarranted in the face of newer, more accurate observations yet he must cling to his current understanding ferociously and denigrate anyone who challenges it. Is it due to a lack of ability to learn? The "old dog new tricks" cliché seems to apply.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2018
Who ever said turbulence and other interesting things don't happen in the solar wind? I was talking about the bulk solar wind. Which is neutral over ~ 10m. The electrons balance the ions, and both electrons and ions leave the Sun at the same velocity. Fact. And the paper is not only about electrons, you are misreading it. If the electrons and ions were separated due to velocity, that would create a current, yes? What is the current measured in the solar wind? There are numerous physics forums where you could get answers to all of this.
http://pluto.spac...ind.html
RNP
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2018
@Realitycheck
You are blithely unaware as to the breadth/depth of my original ideas/work in many fields, especially cosmology. As I posted to RNP in another thread:
go read this novel (for mainstream) gravitational theory article (alas they still haven't got it anywhere near correct/complete as I have):

https://arxiv.org...3155.pdf

Attentive longstanding members of PO will know what I'm talking about. :)


I appreciate this comment. I have not been able to stop laughing since I read it.

You really are a full blown crank!

I just want to point out that "longstanding members of PO" know full-well that you do not know what you are talking about.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2018
...
it is a variable density plasma with turbulent regions where charge carrier density can double and effectively halve the Debye length in those regions.


And..........................? If the electron and ion densities increase, they will still be quasi-neutral. And if the Debye length lessens, that leaves even less room for imbalances to occur. I really have no idea what you are trying to say. What do you think the solar wind is? As measured?

theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2018
"What is the current measured in the solar wind?"
Well...considering the solar wind is composed of charge carriers I suppose we would have to measure the output at the coronal holes to determine an "ampacity" ...but it 's a flow of charge carriers which by definition constitutes a current. Astrophysics is rife with these types of immeasurables (or un-describables in terms we normally use for quantity descriptions) look at this phrase from your link: "the kinetic energy of the convecting gases is then converted into magnetic energy and finally into thermal energy in the corona. " Please elaborate on the mechanism for conversion of Kinetic energy to "magnetic energy" as well as the what "number" that magnetic energy is measured at .
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2018
^^^^^Wrong. The solar wind is not a current. We might have noticed that! Where are you getting this nonsense from? You do know what quasi-neutrality means? And how often the solar wind has been sampled by various spacecraft over many decades?
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2018
"Who ever said turbulence and other interesting things don't happen in the solar wind? I was talking about the bulk solar wind."

The point I am trying to make is that the "bulk solar wind" Is composed of all of those "interesting things" which produce local effects such varying speeds of the particles, self "heating" turbulent flows measured out as far as 50AU and varying densities across the bulk wind. Taken as a bulk structure the universe quasi neutral, the reason we have light to observe it springs from charge differentiation and particle interactions with each other, along with the fields the particles interact with. The debate here between EU and mainstream overshadows the fact that processes from both camps are required to explain what we see and measure.

Which is neutral over ~ 10m."

Referring to interacting charges as bulk neutral was the reason for my comparison to temperatures in a room above. It's like saying hydrogen and oxygen are "bulk inert".
theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2018
"Wrong. The solar wind is not a current. We might have noticed that! Where are you getting this nonsense from?"

https://en.wikipe..._current
The solar wind is an ideal example of a current based on the definition of a current.

"Quasi-neutrality of a plasma means that the densities of negative and positive charges are (almost) equal. In the case of plasma containing only singly charged ions, this means that."

You can describe any structure composed of equal amounts of opposing charges as quasineutral...you seem to be choosing to ignore that the motion of plasma occurs due to the charge differentiation. Self heating and turbulence occur because of this.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2018
Sorry, but you have totally lost me. The solar wind is not a current. As measured. Turbulence can happen for a variety of reasons. The plasma that is affected by turbulence is quasi-neutral. Currents can exist for short periods in small areas, before disappearing due to quasi-neutrality. That small area is ~ 10m. The solar wind consists of electrons and ions, such that the total charge of ions, plus the total charge of electrons = zero.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2018
....you seem to be choosing to ignore that the motion of plasma occurs due to the charge differentiation.


No, it doesn't. The solar wind is not accelerated due to charge differentiation. And as I keep having to point out, is composed of equal amounts of electrons and ions. Nothing is happening, current wise, over a sphere of ~ 10m. We might have noticed that.
Please link me to whatever astrophysics text or book that you are getting this stuff from. And what is it that you want the solar wind to do? Not this EU nonsense about comets, surely?

theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2018
"The solar wind is not a current. As measured."
OK...but since it perfectly fits the definition of a current as shown to you, I am still going to call it one...hell the difference in the 2 coronal flows is actually termed a current sheet and we measure magnetic fields of opposite polarity on either side of it. The link below describes this along with one process which leads to varying densities within the flows.

https://www.swpc....lar-wind

"Nothing is happening, current wise, over a sphere of ~ 10m. "
Of course not, that is a particles range of influence, you do understand that means the charge of a single ion will react to another ion within this length, and that ions move in reaction to encountering a charge field right? That is basic physics yet you claim: " The solar wind is not accelerated due to charge differentiation" and all of the mechanisms proposed in this paper http://iopscience...9887/pdf say otherwise.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
^^^^^I do not see anything about charge differentiation or acceleration in that paper. And I was talking about the mechanism that accelerates the solar wind from the corona.
And you still won't say why you require the solar wind to be anything other than it is understood to be by scientists who are qualified to study and understand it. What sort of magic do you require it to do?
theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2018
"^^^^^I do not see anything about charge differentiation or acceleration in that paper."
The first page of the paper clearly mentions several acceleration/heating methods, all of which rely on the polarity of the ions interacting with fields and each other - -
"And you still won't say why you require the solar wind to be anything other than it is understood to be by scientists who are qualified to study and understand it."
If you understood it the way they do we wouldn't be having this discussion. You understand it the way you do via your own interpretations of their terminology and in doing so have said several things here which demonstrate your basic mental picture of the SW is like 2 streams of homogenously continually flowing water. It is continuous, but every other physical property it has is dynamic and time variant. Do you re-read these conversations or the info. in the links?

theredpill
1 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2018
"And you still won't say why you require the solar wind to be anything other than it is understood to be by scientists who are qualified to study and understand it. What sort of magic do you require it to do?"
" Do you re-read these conversations or the info. in the links?" The below is from yours, your comment implies agreement and consensus. Below is reality.

However, there is no agreement among solar physicists about how this energy conversion occurs. Similar uncertainty surrounds the question of solar wind acceleration. According to the classical model of solar wind formation, the solar wind is driven by thermal conduction in the Sun's extremely hot corona. However, thermal conduction alone cannot adequately account for the flow speeds observed in the high-speed solar wind, so additional, non-thermal processes must play a role in solar wind acceleration. Several candidate processes have been proposed, but no consensus has been reached.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
The first page of the paper clearly mentions several acceleration/heating methods, all of which rely on the polarity of the ions interacting with fields and each other - -


Errr, no, it doesn't. How are you changing the polarity of H+?
And you still refuse to say what the electric loonies define the solar wind as. What is it? What do you think it is doing? Where does it differ from the scientific explanation? We could spend hours looking at irrelevant papers, all by real scientists. Which is achieving nothing. As far as I can tell, the EU view of the solar wind is the same as that of actual scientists. IOW, it is composed of equal number of ions and electrons, travelling at the same velocity, and is quasi-neutral beyond ~ 10m.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
However, there is no agreement among solar physicists about how this energy conversion occurs. Similar uncertainty surrounds the question of solar wind acceleration.


Correct, which is why they have missions such as the Parker Solar Probe, to help clarify it. Have the EU non-scientists got a mechanism we should know about?

RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2018
@RNP.
You [@jd] are blithely unaware as to the breadth/depth of my original ideas/work in many fields, especially cosmology. As I posted to RNP in another thread:
go read this novel (for mainstream) gravitational theory article (alas they still haven't got it anywhere near correct/complete as I have):
https://arxiv.org...3155.pdf

Attentive longstanding members of PO will know what I'm talking about. :)
I appreciate this comment. I have not been able to stop laughing since I read it.
You recently wielded the 'Sword of Ignorance' against @Benni by accusing him of "willful ignorance"; that 'sword' was obviously 'double edged', because it swung back and 'cut' you just as much as it did him, mate. :)

Seriously, @RNP; even some of 'the gang' giving you unearned '5s' have seem my ToE involving 'vector gravity' approach (and provides origins/entities etc, not merely abstract math 'copying' attempts by mainstream now).

@RNP you are failing objectivity, fairness. Bad. :(
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2018
@cantthink69 doesn't know what "sputtering" means. And wouldn't understand it if it were explained.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
@jonesdave.

I'm heartened to see you have appreciably toned down the antagonism etc. Kudos, mate! :)

Anyhow, further to my previous FYIs re complicating factors involved in SW dynamics, I ask you to also consider SW plasma-flow 'deflecting' and SW plasma-flow 'currenting' effects of Sun's Magnetic field 'pattern' extending from surface up into corona and further out into surrounding space.

The plasma cannot avoid such Magnetic field pattern; and hence plasma 'charges' will also be trapped, sorted and re-directed to FLOW-SPIRAL within Solar mag-fields pattern according to 'charge' type.

Such flows/currents can arise/go for many thousands of kilometers along 'loop currents' on sun's surface; and even greater distances within/around coronal 'atmosphere'; and even longer 'current' flows may arise/persist further out in surrounding space thanks to extended solar magnetic field pattern trapping/redirected as above mentioned.

See? SW dynamics is complex throughout. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2018
OK, @RC, here's a challenge for you: what is sputtering, how is it used, and why is it important in solar wind dynamics?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
Right, this is from the book: Basics of the Solar Wind, by Nicole Meyer-Vernet, 2007. Chapter 5.4:

Electrons and protons have opposite charges, but their masses differ by the factor mp/me ~ 1837, so that electrons have a thermal speed greater than protons by a factor of order of magnitude (mp/me)1/2 ~43 (because their temperatures have generally the same order of magnitude). This has several consequences:

>whereas protons are strongly bound close to the Sun, electrons barely feel gravity; indeed, at a temperature of 106 K, their thermal speed ~5.5 × 10^6 m s−1 is nearly 10 times greater than the escape speed;

>the greater thermal speed of electrons is expected to make them carry heat much faster than do protons;

>Collisions between electrons and protons exchange energy at a rate ∼(mp/me) slower than the rate of momentum exchange, which is itself slow since the medium is weakly collisional; hence electrons and protons may have different temperatures;

(cont..)
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2018
(...cont)


>since electrons and protons are subjected to very different forces (and may have different temperatures), an electric field sets up to preserve electric quasi-neutrality.

Since electrons and protons have opposite charges, electric quasi-neutrality requires them to have roughly the same number density n. Furthermore, since the radial electric current must vanish otherwise electric charge would accumulate indefinitely on the Sun, electrons and protons should have also the same radial bulk speed. The simplest generalisation of the one-fluid picture is therefore to consider two fluids having the same bulk velocity but different particle masses, temperatures and heat fluxes.


Right, that is the basic essentials, which is what we were discussing.

https://www.cambr...C54629C7
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2018
@Da Schneib.
OK, @RC, here's a challenge for you: what is sputtering, how is it used, and why is it important in solar wind dynamics?
Please desist from trolling with trite, timewasting 'challenges' which anyone who can read wiki can 'answer' even if they weren't already long familiar (like me) with the subject already. Haven't you learned your lesson about trolling me, mate? Give it a rest , @DS; better spend your time/intellect updating yourself on all the things which more recent discovery/review by mainstream (in many fields) are increasingly confirming my longstanding observations/understandings in. If you can't contribute to polite scientific discussion, then please at least refrain from further unhelpful baiting/trolling. Thanks. :)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
The entire article is about sputtering. Maybe you missed that, @RC.

Obviously you know nothing of sputtering because you are bobbing, ducking, and weaving, as you usually do. And if you know nothing about sputtering you've missed the entire point of this article. Why are you commenting on it, @RC, when you obviously know nothing about it?
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
Tell me, @RC, have you ever seen a sputtering machine in a microchip foundry? I have operated one.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
@Da Schneib.
The entire article is about sputtering. Maybe you missed that, @RC.

Obviously you know nothing of sputtering because you are bobbing, ducking, and weaving, as you usually do. And if you know nothing about sputtering you've missed the entire point of this article. Why are you commenting on it, @RC, when you obviously know nothing about it?
Seriously, mate, you are incorrigibly insensible and irrelevant now.

The points of my response to your above trolling post were:

- your trolling and trite 'challenges';
and
- your lack of useful contribution to polite science discourse on the discussions herein.

Please do not keep digging your troll hole, @DS; it's unseemly in both a scientist and/or a gentlemen. If you are neither,then you can keep making that unambiguously clear to all readers, by persisting with such 'tactics' in lieu of good-faith science discourse contribution. Your choice, mate. :)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
So you never have and have no idea what is involved.

That's what everybody thought. Bye now, @RC.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2018
@Da Schneib.
So you never have and have no idea what is involved.

That's what everybody thought. Bye now, @RC.
This trolling tactic is beneath even you, mate. Yu make assertions which you have n way of supporting because you do not know what I can do or know. Then you proceed t answer your own trite 'question'. If you ever were a scientist you would be thrown out in disgrace by now. What's the matter with you, @DS; don't you ever learn from your many past fiascos when trolling/attacking me while you were eventually proven to be the ignorant wrong bigmouth after all? Learn. :)
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2018
@jonesdave.
this is from the book: Basics of the Solar Wind,...
Since electrons and protons have opposite charges, electric quasi-neutrality requires them to...
See the implicit 'qualifying assumption': "...electric quasi-neutrality requires..." embedded in that sentence, jd? The actual real-world meaning/interpretation (in the SW dynamics/properties context) of "quasi-neutral" is also at issue between you; which makes that 'assumption' implicit in that sentence merely the 'experts' OPINION based on IF that 'assumption' holds true as simplistically as you/they have 'cast the situation' to allow said 'conclusion'...a circuitous logic/argument 'construction' right there.

And:
since the radial electric current must vanish otherwise electric charge would accumulate indefinitely on the Sun,...
Again, 'conditional' opinion/conclusion ASSUMING/IF no charge on Sun! They haven't proved that as fact; only assumed it to 'construct' their opinion.

Careful. :)

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
^^^^Well, every scientist that studies the solar wind will tell you that you are wrong. So why not shut up, eh? You are contributing nothing other than ill informed, baseless opinion. Go get an education.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2018
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

Skippy don't let them hurt your feeling,,,,, anybody who knows anything about science can see you are the sputtering Sputtering-In-Chief-Skippy.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2018
Again, 'conditional' opinion/conclusion ASSUMING/IF no charge on Sun! They haven't proved that as fact; only assumed it to 'construct' their opinion.


Can you not read? What does the word 'indefinitely' mean where you come from? What would be the result of a charge building up indefinitely on the Sun? Hmmm? Ever hear of Coulomb repulsion? Yes? Goodbye Sun in pretty short order.

jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2018
^^^^^^^^^Not to mention that a build up of charge would get to the point where the oppositely charged particles could not leave the Sun. However, they do. Ergo, there is no great charge on the Sun. Far smarter people than you have figured that out. It is, after all, pretty basic stuff.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2018
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

Skippy don't let them hurt your feeling,,,,, anybody who knows anything about science can see you are the sputtering Sputtering-In-Chief-Skippy.

Nawww, that's *spluttering*. ;)

Splutter: verb
say something rapidly, indistinctly, and with a spitting sound, as a result of anger, embarrassment, or another strong emotion.
"he began to splutter excuses"
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
@cantthink69 doesn't know what "sputtering" means. And wouldn't understand it if it were explained.

From an educational website, from which this was gleaned;
"Sputtering is a method of vaporizing materials from a solid surface by bombardment with high-velocity ions causing an ejection of atoms and clusters."
Bombardment by electric ions is electric discharge.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
Now @cantthink69 demonstrates it does not know what "discharge" means either.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
Now @cantthink69 demonstrates it does not know what "discharge" means either.

Once again, it's as easy as reading a definition. From an educational website;

"An electrical discharge results from the creation of a conducting path between two points of different electrical potential in the medium in which the points are immersed."

Lo and behold, exactly what is occurring. The movement of charge in all plasmas is an electric discharge.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Now @cantthink69 demonstrates it does not know what "discharge" means either.

Once again, it's as easy as reading a definition. From an educational website;

"An electrical discharge results from the creation of a conducting path between two points of different electrical potential in the medium in which the points are immersed."

Lo and behold, exactly what is occurring. The movement of charge in all plasmas is an electric discharge.


Wrong. There is no conducting path. Why would there be?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
Just for the hard of thinking, a little recap on solar wind sputtering:
Solar wind is tootling along at a few hundred km/s, minding its own business. Suddenly an asteroid, inactive comet or airless planet gets in the way. Solar wind electrons and ions slam into said object. Ions, being heavier than electrons, cause some of the constituent atoms of some of the material they hit to be ejected from the material. Nothing more than that, really.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
Ions, being heavier than electrons, cause some of the constituent atoms of some of the material they hit to be ejected from the material. Nothing more than that, really.

Obviously, jonesdumb didn't read the above article which contradicts his statement. LOL!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Ions, being heavier than electrons, cause some of the constituent atoms of some of the material they hit to be ejected from the material. Nothing more than that, really.

Obviously, jonesdumb didn't read the above article which contradicts his statement. LOL!


Really? In what way? They are suggesting that some of the multiply charged ions create larger sputtering abundances due to potential sputtering, if I have read it correctly. This still has absolutely zilch to do with anything conducting anything else. And I still don't see what your point is. Solar wind sputtering has been known about and studied for a long time. What do you think it is suddenly doing that it wasn't before? And of what relevance is it?

Potential sputtering:
https://www.ncbi....15306277
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Here is the clearest definition of potential sputtering I could find:

When highly charged ions approach, surface electron(s) can neutralize the incoming ion by filling its outer shell(s); the excited former ion (neutral) subsequently de-excites by electron emission, becoming ionized once again. Multiple fast cycles of this process occur with ion approach, impact, and penetration into the surface layer, enhancing the total sputtering yield .


Contribution of Surface Processes to the Lunar Exosphere
Dukes, C. A. & Johnson, R. E.
https://www.resea...xosphere

cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
What do you think it is suddenly doing that it wasn't before?
It's always done it, the maths describing it was insufficient. As this statement agrees;
"New results of the TU Wien now show that previous models of this process are incomplete. The effects of solar wind bombardment are in some cases much more drastic than previously thought."
And of what relevance is it?

Charge matters
However, this requires a precise understanding of the effects of the solar wind on the rock surfaces, and this is precisely where decisive gaps in knowledge still exist. Therefore, the TU Wien investigated the effect of ion bombardment on wollastonite, a typical moon rock. "Up to now it was assumed that the kinetic energy of the fast particles is primarily responsible for atomization of the rock surface. But this is only half the truth: we were able to show that the high electrical charge of the particles plays a decisive role."

You can ignore the facts, but it is decisively clear.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
You can ignore the facts, but it is decisively clear.


What facts? Potential energy? Where is this 'conducting path' nonsense? Whatever is being sputtered from the Moon, or comets, or asteroids, is the same stuff that has always been sputtered from them. Yes, we now know that the heavier, multiply charged ions are having more effect than previously believed. It doesn't change what was found at 67P when they looked for sputtered species, regardless of what was causing it.
You've just seen the word 'potential', and figured it was something to do with electrical woo.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2018
You've just seen the word 'potential', and figured it was something to do with electrical woo.

It's not woo, it's real and clearly you don't get it. Potential is a measure of relative electric charge.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
You've just seen the word 'potential', and figured it was something to do with electrical woo.

It's not woo, it's real and clearly you don't get it. Potential is a measure of relative electric charge.


Nope. Read the papers. It is potential energy. This comes from the energy initially required to remove the electrons from the ion.
http://eapmail.ia...sl04.pdf
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
And this may be the most thorough investigation of this process, but it isn't the first:

Solar-wind protons and heavy ions sputtering of lunar surface materials (2011)
Barghouty, A. F. et al.
https://www.scien...10009663
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Nope. Read the papers. It is potential energy. This comes from the energy initially required to remove the electrons from the ion.

ROTFLMFAO!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Nope. Read the papers. It is potential energy. This comes from the energy initially required to remove the electrons from the ion.

ROTFLMFAO!


Want me to quote one of the above authors saying precisely that, woo boy?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
OK, from the first line of the abstract I linked woo boy to:

The potential energy stored in multiply charged ions is liberated when the ions recombine during impact on a solid surface.


And:

In addition to their kinetic energy, ions can also carry internal (potential) energy, particularly if the ions carry a high charge. In a highly charged ion (HCI), potential energy will be stored according to its production, when q electrons (where q is the ion charge state) have to be removed from an originally neutral atom, and this potential energy becomes rather large for high values of q, as shown in figure 1. Upon surface impact, this potential energy is available for inducing various inelastic processes,...


http://eapmail.ia...sl04.pdf

cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
It's getting dumb around here, jonesdumb continuously claim the EU is woo but then acknowledges the mechanisms they propose is already understood by the mainstream scientists. At least he is finally getting the point. The major difference being the electrical aspects are of decisive importance. Mainstream claims to have known electric currents exist in space, they claim they don't do anything. Fact of the matter is, all this electric "woo" is of decisive importance.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
It's getting dumb around here, jonesdumb continuously claim the EU is woo but then acknowledges the mechanisms they propose is already understood by the mainstream scientists. At least he is finally getting the point. The major difference being the electrical aspects are of decisive importance. Mainstream claims to have known electric currents exist in space, they claim they don't do anything. Fact of the matter is, all this electric "woo" is of decisive importance.


No, it isn't, dummy. You just ****ed up royally with your 'potential' definition, have been shown to be wrong, and are now back to spewing the scientifically illiterate dunderdolts crap.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Let's set ourselves a little test. There are two solar wind ions, let them be N4+ and O3+. Now, which one will impart the most energy on striking a surface? Well, O has 16 nucleons, and N has 14. So we have to figure that O will deliver the most kinetic energy. However, N4+ has lost 4 electrons, so has gained the potential energy needed for the ionization of 4 electrons. On the other hand, the O3+ has only gained the potential energy from the ionization of 3 electrons. Which one imparts the most energy?
Don't know, can't be bothered working it out. That is what one would have to do, though, to make a sensible statement about the effects.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2018
.....the mechanisms they propose is already understood by the mainstream scientists.


Ummmmm, no. Mainstream (i.e. real) scientists are not stupid enough to believe that the Sun is a giant lightbulb, that comets are electrical rocks, that dinosaurs were too heavy to have existed, that Earth used to orbit Saturn, that Venus came hurtling out of Jupiter............................et cetera. EU is, indeed, pure woo.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
You just ****ed up royally with your 'potential' definition

What energy/force is responsible for the "potential" energy?

Isn't it amusing? It's not potential, it's "potential ". It's not sputtering, it's "sputtering". It's not electrochemistry, it's "electrochemistry", etc, etc, etc. All the required dual definitions so jonesdumb can continue to be "correct". LOL!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
You just ****ed up royally with your 'potential' definition

What energy/force is responsible for the "potential" energy?

Isn't it amusing? It's not potential, it's "potential ". It's not sputtering, it's "sputtering". It's not electrochemistry, it's "electrochemistry", etc, etc, etc. All the required dual definitions so jonesdumb can continue to be "correct". LOL!


Jeez, what an idiot! Get totally shown up, get linked to the stuff that shows you up, and it's me being wrong! Lol. Go away and learn some science.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2018
I have just imparted potential energy to my TV remote, by lifting it from the floor to the coffee table. Is it safe to touch?
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
What energy/force is responsible for the "potential" energy?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
What energy/force is responsible for the "potential" energy?


Whatever ionised it in the first place, you loon. Heat, collision etc. And it isn't "potential" energy. It is potential energy. As the authors would tell you.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2018
I have a question. We've been using sputtering in wafer fabs since the 1970s. What about this does @cantthink69 imagine in its delusions we don't know?
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
I have a question. We've been using sputtering in wafer fabs since the 1970s. What about this does @cantthink69 imagine in its delusions we don't know?

Obviously da schnied didn't read the article as the scientists who wrote the paper are claiming the deficiencies of previous models being only half right and that the charge species involved are of utmost importance.
It also raises the idea that none of these collisions are purely kinetic regardless of whether or not the maths works out. All of these interactions may very well be primarily due to the electric discharge process.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
All of these interactions may very well be primarily due to the electric discharge process.


Nope. This effect was first identified in 1995. The chap who wrote the paper is in the picture above. In all the papers written since then, nobody has described it as an electric discharge process. This is about potential energy. The charge is irrelevant, to an extent. The energy imparted by different species with the same charge will be different, due to the potential energy needed to remove electrons from those species. So, He2+ gains 77 eV. Mg 2+ gains 22 eV. P3+ gains 58 eV.
http://www.dreebi...ase.html
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2018
This is about potential energy.

Yep, electrostatic potential, you know, "woo". From the website you linked;
"The DREEBIT Ionization Energy Database app provides information about the energy which is necessary for ionization of an atom or ion of a certain chemical element, i.e. to extract an electron from a specific shell in the electrostatic potential of its nucleus. Furthermore, the overall potential energy stored in the selected ion is given."

ROTFLMFAO, jonesdumb wants so desperately to not be irrelevant. Alas, it is completely futile. "Woo" is all around you jonesdumb except in the neurons where you really need them.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Furthermore, the overall ***potential energy*** stored in the selected ion is given


Idiot, that is the bit you should be looking at. Stopping pissing around with stuff that is beyond you.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
I'll just repeat this for the hard of thinking:

OK, from the first line of the abstract I linked woo boy to:

The potential energy stored in multiply charged ions is liberated when the ions recombine during impact on a solid surface.


And:

In addition to their kinetic energy, ions can also carry internal (potential) energy, particularly if the ions carry a high charge. In a highly charged ion (HCI), potential energy will be stored according to its production, when q electrons (where q is the ion charge state) have to be removed from an originally neutral atom, and this potential energy becomes rather large for high values of q, as shown in figure 1. Upon surface impact, this potential energy is available for inducing various inelastic processes,...


http://eapmail.ia...sl04.pdf


cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Let me help you out as you clearly don't get it, edited to identify the "potential" energy;

"The ***electrostatic*** potential energy stored in multiply charged ions is liberated when the ions recombine during impact on a solid surface."

And

"In addition to their kinetic energy, ions can also carry internal (***electrostatic*** potential) energy, particularly if the ions carry a high charge. In a highly charged ion (HCI),***electrostatic*** potential energy will be stored according to its production, when q electrons (where q is the ion charge state) have to be removed from an originally neutral atom, and this ***electrostatic*** potential energy becomes rather large for high values of q, as shown in figure 1. Upon surface impact, this ***electrostatic*** potential energy is available for inducing various inelastic processes,..."

It's all electric "woo", and jonesdumb is fading into a forgotten past due to his denial of all things electric.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
^^^^Sorry, that is outright lying. The word 'electrostatic' occurs nowhere, idiot. Hence the need to lie. Go away, woo boy, this stuff is obviously beyond you.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2018
^^^^Sorry, that is outright lying. The word 'electrostatic' occurs nowhere, idiot. Hence the need to lie. Go away, woo boy, this stuff is obviously beyond you.

No, no it isn't. You are lying. See your link which identified the "potential", it's very clear.
""The DREEBIT Ionization Energy Database app provides information about the energy which is necessary for ionization of an atom or ion of a certain chemical element, i.e. to extract an electron from a specific shell in the ***electrostatic*** potential of its nucleus. Furthermore, the overall potential energy stored in the selected ion is given."

That is you own link which identifies what kind of potential energy resides within the shell of the nucleus.
that is the bit you should be looking at.

In other words, ignore that which shows jonesdumb is lying (i.e., cherry pick) so he can still be "correct"...
LOL!

jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
^^^^Christ, some people are just so thick it hurts! Why do you think they say "Furthermore"? Idiot. Why do you think none of the papers on this mechanism mention the word electrostatic? Can't you read? Try reading one of the papers. Idiot. The potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. There is no frigging discharge, you uneducated fool!
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2018
Why do you think they say "Furthermore"?

I think we're getting to the bottom of why your POV is so hopelessly skewed, you don't understand Engrish nor can you grasp context. The paragraph is about database which "furthermore" describes the overall ***electrostatic*** potential energy stored....
Why do you think none of the papers on this mechanism mention the word electrostatic?

Because any physicist knows one must be discussing electrostatic potential when referring to ionization energy.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Why do you think they say "Furthermore"?

I think we're getting to the bottom of why your POV is so hopelessly skewed, you don't understand Engrish nor can you grasp context. The paragraph is about database which "furthermore" describes the overall ***electrostatic*** potential energy stored....
Why do you think none of the papers on this mechanism mention the word electrostatic?

Because any physicist knows one must be discussing electrostatic potential when referring to ionization energy.


Wrong. Read the papers. You are a waste of space.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
OK, in woo-woo world, what is happening to this 'electrostatic potential energy'?
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
OK, in woo-woo world, what is happening to this 'electrostatic potential energy'?

It's filling in the "decisive gaps in knowledge which still exist" in this decidedly electric discharge process.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
OK, in woo-woo world, what is happening to this 'electrostatic potential energy'?

It's filling in the "decisive gaps in knowledge which still exist" in this decidedly electric discharge process.


Wrong. Lol. All that tells us is that you didn't understand the relevant papers. As if we didn't know! Potential sputtering has been around in the literature for decades.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2018
Potential sputtering has been around in the literature for decades.

Yet, in the article above the lead author is quoted as saying;
"Up to now it was assumed that the kinetic energy of the fast particles is primarily responsible for atomization of the rock surface," says Paul Szabo, Ph.D. student in Friedrich Aumayr's team and first author of the current publication. "But this is only half the truth: we were able to show that the high electrical charge of the particles plays a decisive role. It is the reason that the particles on the surface can do much more damage than previously thought."

So as has been shown by experiments and as described in the paper above you are wrong. If you are unable to admit it your dementia is causing delusional beliefs.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
^^^^No, I said potential sputtering has been around in the literature for decades. Its applicability to the lunar surface etc, is relatively new.
https://www.scien...10009663
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
It is the reason that the particles on the surface can do much more damage than previously thought."


And has absolutely nothing to do with electric discharges! Lol. What a wazzock.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2018
So, what is actually happening in this potential sputtering lark?

The projectiles become completely neutralized in front of the surface and excited states decay rapidly by autoionization to yield ample emission of low-energy electrons. However, only a fraction of the potential energy originally stored in the projectile is released above the surface, because the image charge attraction limits the interaction time available. A larger part of this potential energy will thus only be liberated in close vicinity to, or even below, the surface, when Rydberg electrons become 'peeled off' and more tightly bound shells (e.g. M, L, K) have become filled by Auger neutralization from the conduction band or in close collisions with target atoms (Schippers et al. 1993; Arnau et al. 1995, 1997; Stolterfoht et al. 1995).


(cont....)
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2018
(cont....)

In this way, the potential energy of the projectile is converted into kinetic energy of
the emitted electrons and electronic excitation of a small surface region. This electronic excitation consists of electron–hole pairs, 'hot holes' in the conduction and/or valence band of the target, and inner-shell holes of target atoms..In materials with reduced electron mobility (e.g. insulator targets), the sudden modification of the near-surface electronic structure cannot immediately be restored and may therefore induce structural surface modifications (defect formation, desorption, sputtering, etc.). This is the origin of sputtering induced by the projectile's potential energy, i.e. potential sputtering.


Uh-huh. Sounds like your typical electric discharge to me!

http://eapmail.ia...sl04.pdf
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2018
Of especial note:
The projectiles become completely neutralized in front of the surface and excited states decay rapidly by autoionization
That's where the shizzle is hidden.

In addition, note that "image charge" in this case is not a reference to mirror charge analysis, but to the effects of the high-speed ions' charges on the substrate, which attracts opposite charges to the surface and further attracts the ions.

It does help to have an EE.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2018
Ions in the wind - N4 total mass is 56, O3 total mass is 48 assuming N4 and O3 travel at the same velocity in the solar wind where each nucleon has the same mass, the same velocity and the same momentum, it all depends on the total mass between N4 and O3 as to which imparts the greater momentum on impact as in this case the lighter molecule nitrogen in combination of being N4 imparts the greater momentum
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
Ions in the wind - N4 total mass is 56, O3 total mass is 48 assuming N4 and O3 travel at the same velocity in the solar wind where each nucleon has the same mass, the same velocity and the same momentum, it all depends on the total mass between N4 and O3 as to which imparts the greater momentum on impact as in this case the lighter molecule nitrogen in combination of being N4 imparts the greater momentum


No, Granville! O 3+ has 16 nucleons (8 protons, 8 neutrons) and is missing 3 electrons. It has a molecular weight of 16 (8 + 8). N 4+ has 14 nucleons (7P + 7N), and is missing 4 electrons. Its molecular weight is 14 (7 + 7). So, the O has a higher molecular weight, and therefore will have more kinetic energy. N has lost more electrons, so has more potential energy. We are not talking about (O3)+ or (N4)+.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
Just so there is no confusion, a few bullet points regarding sputtering from wikistupidia;

1) Sputtering is a process whereby particles are ejected from a solid target material due to bombardment of the target by energetic particles,
2) It only happens when the kinetic energy of the incoming particles is much higher than conventional thermal energies (≫ 1 eV).
3) Sputtering is done either using DC voltage (DC sputtering) or using AC voltage (RF sputtering). In DC sputtering, voltage is set from 3-5 kV and in RF sputtering, power supply is set at 14 MHz.
4)The term electronic sputtering can mean either sputtering induced by energetic electrons or sputtering due to very high-energy or highly charged heavy ions that lose energy to the solid, mostly by electronic stopping power, where the electronic excitations cause sputtering.
5) In the case of multiple charged projectile ions a particular form of electronic sputtering can take place that has been termed potential sputtering.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
To conclude;

Sputtering is a plasma process (electric "woo")

It requires particles to have non-thermal energy (electric "woo")

On Earth sputtering requires an electrical input. (electric "woo")

Potential sputtering is a type of electronic sputtering that involves electronic stopping. (electric "woo")

All these are electric plasma processes.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2018
^^^^^And.......? The process has been well described in the literature, and is nothing to do with electric discharges.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
^^^Every time one of you idiots sees the word electron, electronic etc, you think it is something to do with the woo that you believe! All this has been known to science since before your cult was invented by a bunch of Velikovskians. So what are you saying? 'We agree with mainstream science'? Great. That was productive.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2018
Sputtering is a plasma process


So what? I think we've known that for a while!

It requires particles to have non-thermal energy


Yep, such as kinetic or potential energy. Yippee.

On Earth sputtering requires an electrical input.


So? How else do you want to accelerate them? With a pea shooter?

Potential sputtering is a type of electronic sputtering that involves electronic stopping


And that is simply you not understanding the terminology, again. Electronic stopping is called such to distinguish it from nuclear stopping. The latter is due to interactions with the nucleons, the former from collisions between the electrons in the target and the medium. You can think of it as electron-ic.
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2018
Ions in the wind - N4 total mass is 56, O3 total mass is 48 assuming N4 and O3 travel at the same velocity in the solar wind where each nucleon has the same mass, the same velocity and the same momentum, it all depends on the total mass between N4 and O3 as to which imparts the greater momentum on impact as in this case the lighter molecule nitrogen in combination of being N4 imparts the greater momentum


No, Granville! O 3+ has 16 nucleons (8 protons, 8 neutrons) and is missing 3 electrons. It has a molecular weight of 16 (8 + 8). N 4+ has 14 nucleons (7P + 7N), and is missing 4 electrons. Its molecular weight is 14 (7 + 7). So, the O has a higher molecular weight, and therefore will have more kinetic energy. N has lost more electrons, so has more potential energy. We are not talking about (O3)+ or (N4)+.

my mistake on convention
jonesdave> N4+ and O3+


jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2018
^^^^^I'm not sure how, or if it is possible, to render sub- and superscripts here, which would make it less confusing!
gculpex
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2018
Things I learned from Jonesdave:
The solar wind is not strong enough to affect the outer planets beyond earth,
Comets have shields as do planets but not asteroids,
The SW is completely quasi-neutral and has no effect
No one can meet the requirements to discuss anything with him
He is his own doctor/physician/psychologist and in perfect health
And I'm sure he is writing a paper for the Nobel prize on dark matter


Glad you've learned something. Which parts of it would you like me to link to for the evidence of what I've said? Just say the word.

Never mind, I'll just watch a si-fi show instead...
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
So what are you saying?

These plasma processes are described using well developed EE concepts. The Universe is composed of 99.999% plasma, 99.999% of the physics of Universe will be explained by well developed EE concepts.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
So what are you saying?

These plasma processes are described using well developed EE concepts. The Universe is composed of 99.999% plasma, 99.999% of the physics of Universe will be explained by well developed EE concepts.


No, it won't. Who would be capable of doing that? And who is currently attempting it? And how would you know, given that your understanding of the subject matter is abysmal, along with all the other loons at woo central? Sorry, you lot are an irrelevance, with no influence upon science, nor much of an understanding of it.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
Never mind, I'll just watch a si-fi show instead...


That'll likely be closer to scientific reality than any of the EU/PC woo.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2018
EE mostly deals with electron flow in wires and chips. Which pretty much leaves out plasma.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
jonesdumb cannot explain why some plasma processes are well explained by EE concepts but other plasma processes are not regardless of the fact that plasma is composed of the same electric particles everywhere.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
jonesdumb cannot explain why some plasma processes are well explained by EE concepts but other plasma processes are not regardless of the fact that plasma is composed of the same electric particles everywhere.


Why would I need to do anything? I don't even know which processes you are talking about. I would have thought that the place to address that is within the scientific literature, yes? So, when are the EUists going to produce something?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
jonesdumb cannot explain why some plasma processes are well explained by EE concepts but other plasma processes are not regardless of the fact that plasma is composed of the same electric particles everywhere.


By definition, EEs have not studied, in any depth, astrophysics. Not formally, anyway. There is no reason why they couldn't get a grasp of it, and some may. However, to make a contribution they would have to go through the same qualifications as astrophysicists, as well as the EE stuff. It would be pointless proposing a scenario based on EE concepts, when the first AP that takes a look at it says, "sorry, it doesn't work like that, and we already know why."
That is why there are now such things as plasma astrophysicists. They understand plasma, and they understand astrophysics. Such people do not work in isolation. They also have colleagues with other specialities, so that they can come up with a coherent whole.
EU has none of that. Just woo merchants.
gculpex
5 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2018
https://phys.org/...top.html

just saw this posted...
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
https://phys.org/news/2018-06-exploring-planetary-plasma-environments-laptop.html

just saw this posted...


Indeed. Although it has to be said that the data (including plasma data) are freely available, going back decades, for various missions from both NASA and ESA.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2018
"sorry, it doesn't work like that, and we already know why."
That is why there are now such things as plasma astrophysicists. They understand plasma, and they understand astrophysics.

That just goes to show jonesdumb lives in opposite world. Alfvén described there were/are two lines of plasma research, the 100+ years-old gas discharge plasmas (see Birkeland), and the purely theoretical approach developed prior to the space-age which believes in such pseudoscientific maths claptrap as frozen-in fields, MRx, and their closely held beliefs which have proven to be an utter failure in producing fusion.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2018
@jonesdave (and @cantdrive85).
So, what is actually happening in this potential sputtering lark?

The projectiles become completely neutralized in front of the surface....
It may be helpful to both of you if you can just pause a moment, to consider/discuss between you two, just where the Electrons are coming from that "completely neutralize the projectiles" if those projectiles are positive ions. I'm curious to observe your (hopefully polite) discussion and (hopefully mutually agreed) conclusions re that aspect. Thanks. :)
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2018
"sorry, it doesn't work like that, and we already know why."
That is why there are now such things as plasma astrophysicists. They understand plasma, and they understand astrophysics.

That just goes to show jonesdumb lives in opposite world. Alfvén described there were/are two lines of plasma research, the 100+ years-old gas discharge plasmas (see Birkeland), and the purely theoretical approach developed prior to the space-age which believes in such pseudoscientific maths claptrap as frozen-in fields, MRx, and their closely held beliefs which have proven to be an utter failure in producing fusion.


Give it up you uneducated wooist. You aren't doing science, and neither is anyone in your irrelevant Velikovskian cult. It gets on just fine without you. And Alfven has done nothing significant in plasma physics for ~ 50 years. Who is living in the past?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2018
@jonesdave (and @cantdrive85).
So, what is actually happening in this potential sputtering lark?

The projectiles become completely neutralized in front of the surface....
It may be helpful to both of you if you can just pause a moment, to consider/discuss between you two, just where the Electrons are coming from that "completely neutralize the projectiles" if those projectiles are positive ions. I'm curious to observe your (hopefully polite) discussion and (hopefully mutually agreed) conclusions re that aspect. Thanks. :)


I quoted the ******* paper and linked to it! Why don't you read it, the references therein, and a bunch of others that describe the process? I do not need your advice. Understand? Go away and talk to somebody else.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2018
@jonesdave.
I quoted the ******* paper and linked to it! Why don't you read it, the references therein, and a bunch of others that describe the process? I do not need your advice. Understand? Go away and talk to somebody else.
Mate, did I miss your and cantdrive's DISCUSSION of that aspect I alluded to? If I did miss it, then my apologies, and would you please direct me to the relevant exchange between you and cantdrive on that? Thanks. :)

If I did not miss it, then your referring me to that link does not magically produce that discussion between you and cantdrive that I was hoping to see on that specific aspect I raised for said discussion; ie:
....I'm curious to observe your (hopefully polite) discussion and (hopefully mutually agreed) conclusions re that aspect. Thanks. :)
Ok, jd? :)
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
Here is a paper which shows the SW affecting the the entire atmospheric column. Given the atmospheric density and presence of the magnetic field on Earth and the lack of density and magnetic field at Mars my suggestion that the SW as a possible origin of Martian dust storms seems valid.

"It is timely to point out to the wider geophysical community that solar wind responses at different altitudes strongly indicate that the whole atmospheric column has a response to solar wind high‐speed streams, something that few atmospheric scientists would have anticipated 10 years ago."

https://agupubs.o...JA025411

Oh yeah, and it also nullifies every climate model and completely falsifies AGW propaganda.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2018
https://agupubs.o...JA025411

Oh yeah, and it also nullifies every climate model and completely falsifies AGW propaganda.


Nope. Is that in the conclusions, is it? Or did you just make that up? And is there a correlation between times of high solar wind flux (CMEs, flares) and dust storms/ devils on Mars and Earth? If so, who has shown this, and where is it published?
Sorry, pure woo. as usual.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
Is that in the conclusions, is it?

Yep, more or less. Here it be;
"The results obtained by Yi et al. in the mesosphere are important, since they fill an observational gap in the atmospheric layers; indeed, together with the results at higher and lower altitudes, they indicate that, at high latitudes, the whole atmospheric column, from the ground to the thermosphere, responds to geomagnetic perturbations driven by the solar wind. Our take-home message is that such a whole-column response was not anticipated a mere decade ago by the wider atmospheric science community, and that it still needs further observational and theoretical exploration, including via numerical modelling.
The processes involved in each atmospheric layer are almost certainly different, and transport phenomena could be important...

TBC...
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
Cont...

"We propose that greater understanding of some of the studies presented here (e.g., those concerning the higher layers of the atmosphere) can benefit from studying the dependence on the interplanetary conditions and the time delays between the solar wind/geomagnetic observations and the associated response in the atmospheric parameters at different altitudes and latitudes.
For example, Regi et al. [2016] conducted also a latitudinal analysis of the 27-day oscillations in temperature and ULF activity/polar cap potential and found a significant coherence between 75°S and 90°S in troposphere and low stratosphere, while between 55° and 70°S just above the tropopause and in the high stratosphere.
In addition, Francia et al. [2015] investigated the correlations between the ULF activity and the surface air temperature also at different time lags. They found that the correlation peaked at 1 and 3 days with respect to Pc1-2 and Pc5 activity.....

TBC...
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
Cont...

"A similar result was obtained by Regi et al. [2017] who, using correlation and Superposed Epoch Analysis approaches, compared Pc1-2 activity with tropospheric temperature, specific humidity and cloud cover from the MACC reanalysis dataset during 2003-2010. They showed that such atmospheric parameters significantly change, following the increase of Pc1-2 fluctuations within 0-2 days, especially when the interplanetary magnetic field
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
Cont...

"...component was oriented southward i.e. when the interplanetary electric field (
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
^^^^^Again, none of this is relevant to climate or dust storms, and nor do the authors say it is! They are talking of easily measurable harmonics of 27d, 13.5d, etc. If there is a correlation between the solar wind and anything, it would be easily shown through a quick check of the data.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
Well, I don't think phys.org likes some of the characters in the conclusion so what I posted is incomplete, but the paper is available to read.

But it is clear, much happens beyond that which jonesdumb claims is possible and much of it is "woo". The SW effects go right down to the surface on Earth with its magnetic field and thick atmosphere, there is nothing to suggest otherwise for Mars or comets for that matter.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2018
.
But it is clear, much happens beyond that which jonesdumb claims is possible and much of it is "woo". The SW effects go right down to the surface on Earth with its magnetic field and thick atmosphere, there is nothing to suggest otherwise for Mars or comets for that matter.


Yes, there is. Direct measurement by spacecraft. We do not need the solar wind to explain dust storms on Earth or Mars. Mor do we need it to explain climate change. And it is not required to explain the outgassing of neutrals from comets.
Ther solar wind is a well studied area, at various locations, and the PC/EU crowd have contributed nothing to it. Everything we know about it is due to real scientists doing real science. Not making sh1t up on the internet.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
We do not need the solar wind to explain dust storms on Earth

I didn't say that, but it's clear the SW has a significant role with weather and climate. As the paper I linked would suggest. As far as Mars, direct observation shows the dust vortices reach higher into the atmosphere than simple mechanisms jonesdumb claims. SW effects almost certainly impinge on the surface of Mars, hence dust storms.
And it is not required to explain the outgassing of neutrals from comets.

Moronic comment by jonesdumb considering the comet is immersed in SW plasma.

the PC/EU crowd have contributed nothing to it.

Clearly jonesdumb has no problem telling outright lies by suggesting Birkeland and Alfvén have contributed nothing. Don't forget to take your dementia medication jonesdumb.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2018
I didn't say that, but it's clear the SW has a significant role with weather and climate.


Nope. Climate is long term. One would need to show a long term correlation between SW conditions and climate for that to be a starter. Weather? Nope, insignificant.

As far as Mars, direct observation shows the dust vortices reach higher into the atmosphere than simple mechanisms jonesdumb claims. SW effects almost certainly impinge on the surface of Mars, hence dust storms.


Errrr, Mars has a lower gravity, and lower atmospheric pressure than Earth! The low pressure means the temperature differences with height are more pronounced. The surface, and a few mm above it, may be at 20 C. At two meters it will be considerably cooler. Hence, perfect conditions for dust devils.

Moronic comment by jonesdumb considering the comet is immersed in SW plasma.


Not for a long time while outgassing is highest. And how, at any time in its orbit, is the SW causing outgassing?

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2018
Clearly jonesdumb has no problem telling outright lies by suggesting Birkeland and Alfvén have contributed nothing.


To the solar wind? Birkeland had nothing to do with your cult, and much of the recent PC crap, would not be supported by Alfven. You want people who have really contributed to our knowledge and understanding of the solar wind? Try Biermann or E. N. Parker.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2018
Further to a comment I made above:

Diurnal variations of the Martian surface layer meteorological parameters during the first 45 sols at two Viking lander sites.
Sutton, J. L. et al.
https://journals....0.CO%3B2

The main thing to take away from the above paper, is that Viking measured the ground temperature, and also measured the air temperature. The instrument for measuring air temperature was on a boom, away from the spacecraft body, at a height of 1.6m above the surface. Fig. 1(a) shows the difference in the two simultaneous measurements. At local noon, we can see that there is a difference of ~ 28 C, from ground to atmosphere, at just 1.6m elevation.
So, if you could somehow walk barefoot on Mars, your feet would be nice and snug, whilst your face would be freezing.
These are very good conditions in which to form dust devils.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
You want people who have really contributed to our knowledge and understanding of the solar wind? Try Biermann or E. N. Parker.

Much of the pseudoscientific claptrap they guessed about is being shown to be completely wrong by direct observation, see SW flux tubes (Birkeland currents). They may have gotten a few things right, but most of it is garbage.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
These are very good conditions in which to form dust devils.

That is but one aspect of many, others of which cannot be be explained by temperature gradients. For example;
Electric heartbeat;
http://www.scienc...eartbeat
Nor can it explain the EM signature of DD's;
https://www.googl...ptV3MfP4
The list goes on, but you will choose willful ignorance.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2018
You want people who have really contributed to our knowledge and understanding of the solar wind? Try Biermann or E. N. Parker.

Much of the pseudoscientific claptrap they guessed about is being shown to be completely wrong by direct observation, see SW flux tubes (Birkeland currents). They may have gotten a few things right, but most of it is garbage.


No, it isn't garbage, and is way closer to reality than any of the crap invented by EU ists. Given that none of you actually do science, then that is not surprising - nobody qualified to do it, eh? And, woo boy, if you want to know what pseudoscience looks like, I suggest a perusal of the dunderdolts site. Electric Sun, anyone? Electric comets? Lol. Dinosaurs that require us to rewrite everything we know about gravity? Electric craters? Earth orbiting Saturn? Venus zooming out of Jupiter? Electric volcanoes? Grand Canyon due to electric woo?
Now, woo boy, that is pseudoscience.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2018
These are very good conditions in which to form dust devils.

That is but one aspect of many, others of which cannot be be explained by temperature gradients. For example;
Electric heartbeat;
http://www.scienc...eartbeat
The list goes on, but you will choose willful ignorance.


Idiot. I just pointed you to the paper that SHOWS the temperature gradients. What do you think happens when sunlight heats rock? And when the atmospheric pressure is about 6 mbar? God you people are stupid. There is less air to hold the heat, so the adiabatic lapse rate is far higher than in a dense atmosphere. See what I mean about you lot being scientifically illiterate? And why your cult still only exists in woo-woo land? It is dumbness like that. And Scott's chromospheric nuclear fusion. And Thornhill's electric comet woo. Scientific illiteracy writ large, for all to see. Stick to misinterpreting mythology.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
I just pointed you to the paper that SHOWS the temperature gradients.

Oooohh! 5 feet! Exhaustive data set! You don't read well do you? I acknowledged and said ***other*** aspects cannot be explained by your measurements, such as the electric heartbeat, high electric fields, among other items. There is more to it than your myopic worldview.
And then you're off changing the subject again. If your models were as predictable as you, you'd be right on the money.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
@cantdrive85.
Given the atmospheric density and presence of the magnetic field on Earth.... Oh yeah, and it also nullifies every climate model and completely falsifies AGW propaganda.
Please be more careful not to confuse the Electrostatic etc issues/factors you are discussing with @jonesdave, with the Earth Climate Change issue/factors. I have already long pointed out (most recently to ZoeBell) that it's atmosphere's "LAG' effect on Earth (regardless of solar-energy radiation/SW-electrostatics etc, or geo-thermal, or human activity, 'inputs') that determines the NET EFFECT/EQUILIBRIUM STATE or 'heat balance' on Earth. I gave the example of planet Mercury, whose 'night side' reaches CRYOGENICALLY LOW surface temperatures due to its LACK of effective atmospheric 'lagging'; and Mercury is 'baking/swimming' in EXTREMELY HOTTER/MORE-ENERGETIC sunlight/solar-wind!).

So please try to stick to the electrostatics issues/factors; avoid conflating with AGW issues/factors. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
Clearly jonesdumb has no problem telling outright lies by suggesting Birkeland and Alfvén have contributed nothing.
And again @cantthink69 lies. Nobody said Birkeland and Alfven contributed "nothing." Making up things and attributing them to people who didn't say them is outright unashamed lying. Grow some shame, @cantthink69.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
Nobody said Birkeland and Alfven contributed "nothing."

da schnied lying again, I'll quote jonesdumb;
"the PC/EU crowd have contributed nothing to it."
Alfvén founded PC, Birkeland was the first to suggest Electric Cosmology.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
And @cantthink69 lies again. Now you're claiming Alfven and Birkeland believed the Velikovskian woo. Birkeland died in 1917, long before Velikovsky was born. Have you no shame?
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
So please try to stick to the electrostatics issues/factors; avoid conflating with AGW issues/factors.

The article is about the SW, I linked an paper that shows the entire atmospheric column is affected by the SW. There are zero climate models which account for this fact. As such all doomsday AGWite models are useless and it completely falsifies the Chicken Little sky is falling prognostications.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
Birkeland died in 1917, long before Velikovsky was born.

Velikovsky- 10 June 1895 – 17 November 1979
LOL! da schnied lies continuously!
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2018
Amazing, @cantthink69 noticed. I didn't think you would because you lie so much.

If you get to do it so do I. Swallow what you're handing out and don't whine.

Meanwhile, what's the truth is that Birkeland did his science 20 years or more before Velikovski did. And you can fold that up until it's all sharp corners and stick it where the Sun don't shine, @cantthink69.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2018
Birkeland currents have nothing to do with the solar wind.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2018
There isn't any solar wind.

Black holes are everywhere.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2018
Everything is made of black holes.

@cantthink69 says so.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2018
What's the matter, @cantthink69? Why did you say everything is made of black holes, and why can't you come and defend it? You're a real coward for lying and saying everything is made of black holes and then not showing up to defend it.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2018
The solar wind impact on rocks is calculated not observational
Solar particles strike rocks 400 to 800 km/s ejecting numerous atoms. creating an "exosphere" of atoms sputtered from the surface, protons make the largest part of the solar wind, where helium plays the main role because, it is heavier and more reactive at +2e carry a large amount of energy which is released in a flash on impact If this is not taken into account, the effects of the solar wind on rocks are misjudged implying this has yet to be observed, the next interesting point is the exosphere as to how its altitude reach's on the moon in relation to its gravity and during its 5billion year existence how many impact particles are left on the Moonian surface and it Moonian atmosphere or exosphere
We will translate Moonian for RNP at a later date but for now RNP, it's the equivalent of Martian atmosphere RNP will suffice
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2018
Nobody said Birkeland and Alfven contributed "nothing."

da schnied lying again, I'll quote jonesdumb;
"the PC/EU crowd have contributed nothing to it."
Alfvén founded PC, Birkeland was the first to suggest Electric Cosmology.


Alfven came up with a bunch of stuff based on plasma. Much of it was wrong. Birkeland did some experiments on his theories about the aurora. If either were alive today, they would laugh at the nonsense you believe in.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2018
Oooohh! 5 feet! Exhaustive data set! You don't read well do you? I acknowledged and said ***other*** aspects cannot be explained by your measurements, such as the electric heartbeat, high electric fields, among other items. There is more to it than your myopic worldview.


Christ, what an idiot. Where are you getting your worldview? Please show us where this has been written up. In other words, not stuff that is already known to mainstream science.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2018
.....such as the electric heartbeat, high electric fields, among other items. There is more to it than your myopic worldview.


And you referenced an article! Did you read the paper? Of course you didn't. Third sentence of the introduction;

Triboelectric processes typically lead to charging of the lofted dust (Harrison et al., 2016), and even from the earliest days of systematic studies of dust devils, their electrical properties have been of interest (Farrell et al, 2006). A notable example in the early work is that of Colonel Baddeley of the British Army, who in the 1860s, carried a gold-leaf electroscope into dust devils in India (e.g. Baddeley, 1860; Lorenz et al., 2016).


No woo going on here. Look up the word 'triboelectric'. Have a look at lightning in volcanic plumes. We know all this stuff, and it is nothing to do with the nonsense you believe.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2018
The solar wind impact on rocks is calculated not observational


Wrong.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2018
For anybody interested in the paper that CD's article comes from, a free copy is here:

http://opus.bath....copy.pdf

Interestingly, I recognise the name of the lead author. He was in an Open University documentary I saw years ago, where John Zarnecki and his team were working on the penetrometer being designed for the Cassini-Huygens mission lander. He was in the UK then, but is now out in the States.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2018
For anybody interested in the paper that CD's article comes from, a free copy is here:

http://opus.bath....copy.pdf

Interestingly, I recognise the name of the lead author. He was in an Open University documentary I saw years ago, where John Zarnecki and his team were working on the penetrometer being designed for the Cassini-Huygens mission lander. He was in the UK then, but is now out in the States.


Ralph D. Lorenz is the chap. He has an interesting home page, if one is actually interested in real science:
http://www.lpl.ar...rlorenz/
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2018
No woo going on here. Look up the word 'triboelectric'

Nope, sorry. Saltation cannot account for the measured electric fields. There is more to the story than you claim, as usual.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2018
No woo going on here. Look up the word 'triboelectric'

Nope, sorry. Saltation cannot account for the measured electric fields. There is more to the story than you claim, as usual.


Really? Says whom?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2018
Really? Says whom?

"On Mars, electric forces (woo according to jonesdumb) might also play a role in dust lifting by reducing the threshold wind stress necessary to initiate saltation. Moreover, several studies suggest that E-fields generated in Martian dust storms can cause electric discharges (woo!) (Eden and Vonnegut, 1973; Melnik and Parrot, 1998; Krauss et al., 2006; Farrell et al., 2003, 2006a; Zhai et al., 2006; Kok and Renno, 2008). The possible occurrence of large E-fields and the associated electric discharges (woo!) has potentially important implications for Martian atmospheric chemistry, human exploration, habitability (Atreya et al., 2006, Delory et al., 2006), and even the possible development of life (Miller, 1953)."

https://www.googl...rY1Ak7J6
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2018
Really? Says whom?

"On Mars, electric forces (woo according to jonesdumb) might also play a role in dust lifting by reducing the threshold wind stress necessary to initiate saltation. Moreover, several studies suggest that E-fields generated in Martian dust storms can cause electric discharges (woo!) (Eden and Vonnegut, 1973; Melnik and Parrot, 1998; Krauss et al., 2006; Farrell et al., 2003, 2006a; Zhai et al., 2006; Kok and Renno, 2008). The possible occurrence of large E-fields and the associated electric discharges (woo!) has potentially important implications for Martian atmospheric chemistry, human exploration, habitability (Atreya et al., 2006, Delory et al., 2006), and even the possible development of life (Miller, 1953)."


Yes, I read that. And it is all caused by triboelectricity. And nowhere does it say it isn't. Your claim was that triboelectricity couldn't cause the observed fields. That claim is not backed up.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2018
Measurements of Electrical Discharges in Martian Regolith Simulant
Fabian, A. et al.
http://occult.mit....288.pdf

You can even do it in a lab.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2018
@cantthink69 thinks everything is made of black holes and has said so. Why should anyone believe this Russian troll?

This after claiming that there are no black holes.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2018
@cantdrive85.
... about the SW, I linked an paper that shows the entire atmospheric column is affected by the SW. There are zero climate models which account for this fact. As such all doomsday AGWite models are useless and it completely falsifies..
You'll note I did not disagree re SW affecting entire atmospheric column. I only pointed out why your SW-based 'conclusion' re AGW (and models) was 'non-sequitur' because of the aspects I stressed re 'atmospheric lagging'. I even highlighted planet Mercury's LACK of atmospheric lagging makes 'all the difference' to ITS heat balance; ie, its 'night side' goes to CRYOGENICALLY LOW temps...despite UNRELENTING EXTREME sunshine/SW heat/energy input!

See?,Since Earth's sunshine/SW (other) 'inputs' are nowhere near as extreme as for Mercury, and have not changed much over last century or so, then it must be Earth's increased atmospheric lagging/trapping that is warming Earth air/oceans due to more (anthropogenic) CO2.

Ok? :)
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2018
Measurements of Electrical Discharges in Martian Regolith Simulant
Fabian, A. et al.
http://occult.mit....288.pdf

You can even do it in a lab.

It terribly amusing how once pointed out now jonesdumb claims electric discharge is not woo after all! Glad to see you are unavoidably coming around to what I have been claiming all along. Also amusing how he links a paper to the IEEE, probably because this couldn't get published in one of his preferred rags due to the realness involved. ROTFLMFAO
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2018
@jonesdave, @cantdrive85.
...triboelectricity.
OK, we know that large dust storms (as distinct from lesser 'dust devils' events) on Mars sometimes cover almost whole hemispheres, and persist much longer than 'dustdevil' events. And the references linked/quoted by both of you discuss how these triboelectric dust storms may affect Mars colonists etc. No argument there from me. :)

However, can either of you chaps direct me to any studies investigating whether 'SPRITES' etc (ie, upwardly-directed 'lighting') also occur on Mars?

Don't recall any myself, but surely there must be at least one such study?

I mean, it's only logical to investigate whether (just as 'charged water' clouds on Earth interact with ionosphere/Magnetic field/SW in Earth's higher altitude 'regions') triboelectrically 'charged dust' clouds on Mars also discharge (at least some of) their charge upwards to upper altitudes (Solar radiation/Solar-Wind ionized 'regions' above said charged dust clouds?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2018
Measurements of Electrical Discharges in Martian Regolith Simulant
Fabian, A. et al.
http://occult.mit....288.pdf

You can even do it in a lab.

It terribly amusing how once pointed out now jonesdumb claims electric discharge is not woo after all! Glad to see you are unavoidably coming around to what I have been claiming all along. Also amusing how he links a paper to the IEEE, probably because this couldn't get published in one of his preferred rags due to the realness involved. ROTFLMFAO


What are you prattling on about now, woo boy? We have known about electric discharges from triboelectricity for bloody yonks! See lightning in volcanic plumes. We don't need the idiots of EU to point it out. You claimed it couldn't be from triboelectricity. You were wrong. As shown
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2018
Measurements of Electrical Discharges in Martian Regolith Simulant
Fabian, A. et al.
http://occult.mit....288.pdf

You can even do it in a lab.

It terribly amusing how once pointed out now jonesdumb claims electric discharge is not woo after all! Glad to see you are unavoidably coming around to what I have been claiming all along. Also amusing how he links a paper to the IEEE, probably because this couldn't get published in one of his preferred rags due to the realness involved. ROTFLMFAO


Oh dear, what a loon! Obviously didn't check the literature did you? Among many papers not in IEEE, this one will do;

Electrical Breakdown Caused by Dust Motion in Low-Pressure Atmospheres: Considerations for Mars.
Eden, H. F. & Vonnegut, B. (1973)
http://science.sc...4089/962

Now, in which year did your cult predict discharges due to triboelectricity on Mars? I think you'll find you were beaten to it. By real scientists.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2018
It terribly amusing how once pointed out now jonesdumb claims electric discharge is not woo after all!


No, I've never said that. That would be dumb. Most people have seen lightning! What I have said is woo is that this is somehow caused by the solar wind. I told you it was from triboelectricity. You said it wasn't. I pointed out papers that say it most definitely is. You then claim that this is what you were claiming all along! I also have claimed that electric discharges are pure woo at comets. And that they are pure woo when called on to explain the Grand Canyon, or Valles Marineris, or the Matterhorn! Yep, that is most definitely woo.

Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2018
No, I've never said that.
@cantthink69 is lying about what people said again. Appears to be its go-to maneuver.

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.