Ingredients for water could be made on surface of moon, a chemical factory

Ingredients for water could be made on surface of moon, a chemical factory
NASA scientists show how ingredients for water could be made on surface of moon, a chemical factory. Credit: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/Ernie Wright

When a stream of charged particles known as the solar wind careens onto the Moon's surface at 450 kilometers per second (or nearly 1 million miles per hour), they enrich the Moon's surface in ingredients that could make water, NASA scientists have found.

Using a computer program, scientists simulated the chemistry that unfolds when the solar wind pelts the Moon's . As the Sun streams protons to the Moon, they found, those particles interact with electrons in the lunar surface, making hydrogen (H) atoms. These atoms then migrate through the surface and latch onto the abundant oxygen (O) atoms bound in the silica (SiO2) and other oxygen-bearing molecules that make up the lunar soil, or regolith. Together, hydrogen and oxygen make the molecule hydroxyl (OH), a component of water, or H2O.

"We think of water as this special, magical compound," said William M. Farrell, a plasma physicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, who helped develop the simulation. "But here's what's amazing: every rock has the potential to make water, especially after being irradiated by the solar wind."

Understanding how much water—or its chemical components—is available on the Moon is critical to NASA's goal of sending humans to establish a permanent presence there, said Orenthal James Tucker, a physicist at Goddard who spearheaded the simulation research.

"We're trying to learn about the dynamics of transport of valuable resources like hydrogen around the and throughout its exosphere, or very thin atmosphere, so we can know where to go to harvest those resources," said Tucker, who recently described the simulation results in the journal JGR Planets.

Several spacecraft used infrared instruments that measure light emitted from the Moon to identify the chemistry of its surface. These include NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft, which had numerous close encounters with the Earth-Moon system en route to comet 103P/Hartley 2; NASA's Cassini spacecraft, which passed the Moon on its way to Saturn; and India's Chandrayaan-1, which orbited the Moon a decade ago. All found evidence of water or its components (hydrogen or hydroxyl).

Ingredients for water could be made on surface of moon, a chemical factory
The sun releases a constant stream of particles and magnetic fields called the solar wind. This solar wind slams worlds across the solar system with particles and radiation -- which can stream all the way to planetary surfaces unless thwarted by an atmosphere, magnetic field, or both. Here's how these solar particles interact with a few select planets and other celestial bodies. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Mary Pat Hrybyk-Keith

But how these atoms and compounds form on the Moon is still an open question. It's possible that meteor impacts initiate the necessary chemical reactions, but many scientists believe that the solar wind is the primary driver.

Tucker's simulation, which traces the lifecycle of hydrogen atoms on the Moon, supports the solar wind idea.

"From previous research, we know how much hydrogen is coming in from the solar wind, we also know how much is in the Moon's very thin atmosphere, and we have measurements of hydroxyl in the surface," Tucker said. "What we've done now is figure out how these three inventories of hydrogen are physically intertwined."

Showing how hydrogen atoms behave on the Moon helped resolve why spacecraft have found fluctuations in the amount of hydrogen in different regions of the Moon. Less hydrogen accumulates in warmer regions, like the Moon's equator, because hydrogen atoms deposited there get energized by the Sun and quickly outgas from the surface into the exosphere, the team concluded. Conversely, more appears to accumulate in the colder surface near the poles because there's less Sun radiation and the outgassing is slowed.

Overall, Tucker's simulation shows that as continually blasts the Moon's surface, it breaks the bonds among atoms of silicon, iron and oxygen that make up the majority of the Moon's soil. This leaves oxygen with unsatisfied bonds. As flow through the Moon's surface, they get temporarily trapped with the unhinged oxygen (longer in cold regions than in warm). They float from O to O before finally diffusing into the Moon's atmosphere, and, ultimately, into space. "The whole process is like a chemical factory," Farrell said.

A key ramification of the result, Farrell said, is that every exposed body of silica in space—from the Moon down to a small dust grain—has the potential to create hydroxyl and thus become a chemical factory for water.


Explore further

Earth's atmosphere stretches out to the moon – and beyond

More information: O. J. Tucker et al, Solar Wind Implantation Into the Lunar Regolith: Monte Carlo Simulations of H Retention in a Surface With Defects and the H 2 Exosphere, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets (2018). DOI: 10.1029/2018JE005805
Citation: Ingredients for water could be made on surface of moon, a chemical factory (2019, February 20) retrieved 20 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-02-ingredients-surface-moon-chemical-factory.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
319 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 20, 2019
Well, if you are selling the water-producing factory? I guess this could be a good idea?

Sci-Fi bunnies will grouse. They were counting on landing anywhere on the moon, stick a pipe in & jump back from the instant geyser.

Don't bother complaining to me! I don't write altright fairytales!
I just wish they could learn the difference between acceleration & momentum. Whenever I see that? I just stop reading that crap & toss the book in the disregard file.

The smarter ones are planning on deposits of ices sheltered by rock from the Sun. Maybe you can sell them an adaption of your factory to liquefy & render the ices into potable water & other volatiles?

The smartest ones will locate water-saturated rocks in orbit & drop those onto the Moon. Exactly where they will need water.

If I remember correctly? It tales approx 100 tons of water to produce one ton of steel?


Feb 20, 2019
Say waaaaa, water creation at the surface of an airless body? Who'd thunk it?

This is a similar mechanism that occurs at comets, the higher charge density resulting in cathode jets.

Feb 20, 2019
A key ramification of the result, Farrell said, is that every exposed body of silica in space—from the Moon down to a small dust grain—has the potential to create hydroxyl and thus become a chemical factory for water.

Indeed it is!

Feb 21, 2019
The following will be a preview of jonesdumb's commentary which will follow in this thread;

Twat...Dickhead...shitforbrains...loser. Shit, you are thick

Tosser!

No dickhead...dummy

you dick...the guys an idiot

dumb as a bag of spanners. A total cockwomble

f**kwit

Wanker..What a bunch of dicks.

Hannes F***ing Alfven

F*** me, you are stupid!...dick

Dickhead...you f***wit., you ignorant poser.

dickhead... shitforbrains? Duh!

Dafuq


jonesdumb has been shown to be dreadfully wrong again, to protect his ego he will respond as a true meathead does.

Feb 21, 2019
Say waaaaa, water creation at the surface of an airless body? Who'd thunk it?

This is a similar mechanism that occurs at comets, the higher charge density resulting in cathode jets.


Wrong. Nowhere near enough solar wind striking the comet to account for even a teaspoon of water per second. The D/H ratio of the cometary water is very different from the solar wind value. And the SW is not reaching the comet for months on end. Fail.

Feb 21, 2019
jonesduuumb, oh jonesduuummmb?
Avoid and ignore difficult evidence much?

Feb 21, 2019
jonesduuumb, oh jonesduuummmb?
Avoid and ignore difficult evidence much?


What evidence? I've just told you that your idiotic claims are impossible. No solar wind = no water. Nowhere near enough, by about 6 orders of magnitude, to explain the outgassing rate when it was only 1 litre per second. And the D/H ratio is wrong. How much more proof do you need that you are talking out of your arse, as usual?

Feb 21, 2019
Nowhere near enough solar wind striking the comet to account for even a teaspoon of water per second. The D/H ratio of the cometary water is very different from the solar wind value. And the SW is not reaching the comet for months on end. Fail.

From what I recall, you claimed this was "impossible woo". Now it just isn't enough. Which is it? No electrolyte? Electrochemistry at comets impossible "woo" still? Moron says dafuq?

Feb 21, 2019
Nowhere near enough solar wind striking the comet to account for even a teaspoon of water per second. The D/H ratio of the cometary water is very different from the solar wind value. And the SW is not reaching the comet for months on end. Fail.

From what I recall, you claimed this was "impossible woo". Now it just isn't enough. Which is it? No electrolyte? Electrochemistry at comets impossible "woo" still? Moron says dafuq?


No, I never said it was impossible, you liar. I said it was an impossible mechanism to explain water at comets, dickhead. Water on the Moon has long been thought to have formed from the solar wind. No big news here. You failed again. Do the maths. Look at the solar wind data from Rosetta. Zilch for around 8 months. Look at the D/H ratios. And then stop talking shite.

Feb 21, 2019
No, I never said it was impossible, you liar. I said it was an impossible mechanism to explain water at comets, dickhead.

From the above article;
"A key ramification of the result, Farrell said, is that every exposed body of silica in space—from the Moon down to a small dust grain—has the potential to create hydroxyl and thus become a chemical factory for water."
Do the maths. Look at the solar wind data from Rosetta. zilch for around 8 months

Look to the jets, plasma is naturally filamentary. The jets and outbursts are far more dense as measured. And the changes in density, etc. that occur prior to the outbursts is unexplainable in the standard guesswork. Most of us, however, understand how these changes occur prior to electric discharges, just as they would on a comet.

Feb 21, 2019
^^^^^^^^^Total drivel. I said do the maths. Go do it. I told you the SW is not reaching the comet for long periods. I am not making that up. I told you the D/H ratio was very different from the SW. I did not make that up, either.
And the jets are dust (and sometimes ice) entrained by gas. As observed. There are no discharges. Instruments would notice that. They didn't. And I have no idea what you are on about with density.

Feb 21, 2019
OK, quickly for the innumerate;

SW speed = 400 km/s.
SW density at 3 AU = 1 per cc.
Cometary surface area in sunlight = 12 km^2.

All rough figures, but that will make no difference to the outcome.

So, surface area = 1.2 x 10^11 cm^2.
SW speed = 4 x 10^7 cm/s.

Each square centimetre is getting hit by 4 x 10^7 protons/ s. So;

4 x 10^7 x 1.2 x 10^11 = ~ 5 x 10^18 protons/ s.

Molecules of H2O in 1 litre of water? 3.35 x 10^25.

You are 7 orders of magnitude short when the comet was barely outgassing! The SW density would increase by about 1 order of magnitude at perihelion. The outgassing rate increased by 3 oom. So, now you are 9 oom short. And at a time when the SW isn't reaching the comet any more!
That is why it is a dumb idea, that only an idiot could have come up with.

Feb 21, 2019
I said do the maths. Go do it. I told you the SW is not reaching the comet for long periods. I am not making that up.

I'll use a bit of your reasoning when you invoke unobserved ions or DM. It's there, it has to be! Your maths is irrelevant as your measurements are very limited. The charge of the spacecraft could skew the measurements as well.
The mechanism most certainly occurs at some point but then becomes impossible according to you. I would propose your ignorance precludes your ability to comprehend the processes involved.

Feb 21, 2019
I said do the maths. Go do it. I told you the SW is not reaching the comet for long periods. I am not making that up.

I'll use a bit of your reasoning when you invoke unobserved ions or DM. It's there, it has to be! Your maths is irrelevant as your measurements are very limited. The charge of the spacecraft could skew the measurements as well.
The mechanism most certainly occurs at some point but then becomes impossible according to you. I would propose your ignorance precludes your ability to comprehend the processes involved.


More drivel. The solar wind is not reaching the comet. As was also seen at Halley, 33 years ago, 20 years before the idiot Thornhill came up with his stupid woo. And there is nothing skewing the measurements of various spacecraft that have measured the solar wind. Your stupid model failed 20 years before it was invented! Lol. This is what happens when you listen to scientifically illiterate Velikovskians like Thornhill and Talbott. GIGO.

Feb 21, 2019
"water could be made on surface of moon"

-Not only water, as cannoli85 will tell you, but electricity which is potentially far more valuable. After all there already is megatons of water ice on the moon.

Feb 21, 2019
I think it was Steven Wright that found storing powdered water was easy, you only needed to add water and presto - water from powder!

Feb 21, 2019
I'll use a bit of your reasoning when you invoke unobserved ions or DM. It's there, it has to be!


Lol. If there were 10^10 protons and electrons per cc at ~ 1 AU, we wouldn't be here, dummy. And the spacecraft certainly wouldn't survive that. This is just another example of the anti-science stance of the EU idiots. You claim to support empirical science, and yet here you are denying it, because it fails to agree with your mythology-based non-science. You are just a cult, full of brainwashed and braindead cultists. EU woo is nothing to do with science. It is all to do with the idiot Velikovsky.

Feb 21, 2019
I scanned for actual numbers... probably not enough to even cool fusion reactors that would use the other hydrogen on the Moon, helium 3. Like any terrestrial consideration, how much energy input will be required for this output? Like on Earth, too low of an Energy Return On Investment will render the whole operation unsustainable (hopefully, solar and fission can be made with less energy, than they generate, on the Moon, too).

Feb 21, 2019
If there were 10^10 protons and electrons per cc at ~ 1 AU, we wouldn't be here, dummy. And the spacecraft certainly wouldn't survive that.

Your attempt at the maths is an utter joke.
There are no discharges. Instruments would notice that

Is that how it works? The instruments determine what the data means? As with any analysis, you not only have to know what to look for but you need to know how to achieve the relevant measurements. The instrumentation on Rosetta wasn't designed to test the electric comet hypothesis. As such, your claims that anything other than the dirty comet guess as being falsified is not valid.

Feb 21, 2019
Your attempt at the maths is an utter joke.


You can't do maths, you thick bastard. Show your calculations, and how they differ from m ine. This calculation has been done numerous times, by numerous people at numerous fora. You end up many orders of magnitude short. Do the maths, thicko. You will find they are correct. I've given you the figures. Show where I'm wrong.

The instrumentation on Rosetta wasn't designed to test the electric comet hypothesis. As such, your claims that anything other than the dirty comet guess as being falsified is not valid.


Who would test a scientifically impossible bunch of crap? However, electric discharges would show up on a magnetometer, you cretin. And Alice was looking at the nucleus and near nucleus in UV. No electric woo. The jets are seen not to be electric woo. The comet is seen not to be rock. The SW is seen not to be reaching the nucleus for ~ 8 months. Etc. Your idiotic 'model' failed. 100%. As shown.

Feb 21, 2019
Your attempt at the maths is an utter joke.


Anybody else reading who might be numerate? Here is what you'll need;

SW density at 3 AU. (at 1 AU it is ~ 7 per cm^3; it falls off as 1/r^2)
SW average velocity. (Hint; ~ 400 km/s)
Comet dimensions. (very roughly 4 x 3 km)
Number of molecules in 1 litre of water. (3.35 x 10^25)

Trust me, a pencil and paper is all you'll need. Not even a calculator. Should take about 5 minutes. And cantthink still can't do it! Lol.

Feb 21, 2019
Trust me, a pencil and paper is all you'll need. Not even a calculator. Should take about 5 minutes. And cantthink still can't do it! Lol.

Your numbers are irrelevant, worth zilch. Your average density is meaningless, plasma is filamentary. Your maths is even less relevant, 2+2=fish.

Feb 21, 2019
Trust me, a pencil and paper is all you'll need. Not even a calculator. Should take about 5 minutes. And cantthink still can't do it! Lol.

Your numbers are irrelevant, worth zilch. Your average density is meaningless, plasma is filamentary. Your maths is even less relevant, 2+2=fish.


Lol. The idiot has truly lost it! My numbers are accurate, and you can't show otherwise, O innumerate one. And the maths is also accurate. If it wasn't, you'd be able to show why. You can't, due to being innumerate, as well as scientifically illiterate. You lost. Loser.

Feb 21, 2019
plasma is filamentary


WTF has that got to do with anything, you idiot? We are talking about the scientific impossibility of recreating the observed outgassing rates from 67P from SW protons striking the surface. You need a SW density that would kill the spacecraft, and any astronauts subjected to such a SW density. Life would never have started under such conditions. You are completely clueless. As are your high priests. Dumb as a bag of spanners.

Feb 21, 2019
Just a question to leave hanging in the aether.............. why are asteroids not outgassing? They are permanently exposed to the solar wind. We have a handful, out of squillions, that show some outgassing behaviour. Some of those probably due to impacts. Some because they likely have water and/ or are comets in asteroidal orbits. We also have a shed load of asteroids in cometary orbits - not outgassing. Please tell us how the idiot Thornhill explains (i.e lies about) this. Interested to know. Why hasn't the Moon got a coma of H2O?
Whatever EU is, it is nothing to do with science.

Feb 22, 2019
plasma is filamentary


WTF has that got to do with anything, you idiot? We are talking about the scientific impossibility of recreating the observed outgassing rates from 67P from SW protons striking the surface.

Because depending on where the measurements are taken and how the statistical gymnastics are applied your averages may be irrelevant as to the quantity of SW ions. Note that flux tubes connecting Sun to comets has been observed, those flux tubes could be supplying flux-transfer-events to comets just as they do with planets.

Feb 22, 2019
Just a question to leave hanging in the aether.............. why are asteroids not outgassing? They are permanently exposed to the solar wind.

Some do, but your answer lies in your question. Charge differential, asteroids being constantly exposed to the SW become more equalised to their surroundings. But asteroids are also interacting electrically with their surroundings.
https://www.nasa....teroids/

Feb 22, 2019
plasma is filamentary


WTF has that got to do with anything, you idiot? We are talking about the scientific impossibility of recreating the observed outgassing rates from 67P from SW protons striking the surface.

Because depending on where the measurements are taken and how the statistical gymnastics are applied your averages may be irrelevant as to the quantity of SW ions. Note that flux tubes connecting Sun to comets has been observed, those flux tubes could be supplying flux-transfer-events to comets just as they do with planets.


Don't talk stupid. A flux of the density you require would kill anything that got in the way of it. Including astronauts and spacecraft. Amazing how we keep missing them, eh? It is a non-starter. Only an EUist could come up with such nonsense.

Feb 22, 2019
Just a question to leave hanging in the aether.............. why are asteroids not outgassing? They are permanently exposed to the solar wind.

Some do, but your answer lies in your question. Charge differential, asteroids being constantly exposed to the SW become more equalised to their surroundings. But asteroids are also interacting electrically with their surroundings.
https://www.nasa....teroids/


Bullshit. You were talking about this proton implantation creating cometary water. This has nothing to do with charge differential. Asteroids are constantly bombarded by the solar wind. As the authors say;

A key ramification of the result, Farrell said, is that every exposed body of silica in space—from the Moon down to a small dust grain—has the potential to create hydroxyl and thus become a chemical factory for water.


Feb 22, 2019
asteroids being constantly exposed to the SW become more equalised to their surroundings.


Asteroids are permanently exposed because they don't outgas, you idiot. Even the very many on cometary orbits. There is no charge differential at comets. Why would there be? It is all a mythology-based fairy tale, made up by scientifically illiterate cranks. Nobody takes it seriously. For good reason.

Feb 22, 2019
To expound, comets spend most of their orbit far from the Sun where plasma density is much lower than the inner SS. This results in a lower charge density of the body compared to when it approaches the inner SS, the coma and comet activity is a result of the differential of charge, not the outgassing of some hypothetical dirty snowball. One test of this idea is the expected increase of activity if the comet is contacted by a CME, and just as expected the results in no way support the standard guesswork of outgassing but do support the electric comet theory.
http://adsabs.har...62S..45E

Feb 22, 2019
To expound, comets spend most of their orbit far from the Sun where plasma density is much lower than the inner SS. This results in a lower charge density of the body compared to when it approaches the inner SS, the coma and comet activity is a result of the differential of charge, not the outgassing of some hypothetical dirty snowball. One test of this idea is the expected increase of activity if the comet is contacted by a CME, and just as expected the results in no way support the standard guesswork of outgassing but do support the electric comet theory.
http://adsabs.har...62S..45E


Total bullshit. There are many asteroids in just such orbits, dummy, and they are not lighting up like the 4th of July. The electric comet is not a theory. It is 100% debunked woo. And there is nothing hypothetical about observed ice. And the thousands of tonnes of it excavated at Tempel 1, and floating around Hartley 2, and other comets.

Feb 22, 2019
http://adsabs.har...62S..45E

Has no help whatsoever for the EC woo. There was no increase in activity. Fail.

Here is the full paper;

CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Edberg, N. J. T. et al
https://academic..../2633360

Feb 22, 2019
Here is a list of asteroids with (mostly) comet-like orbits;

https://www.physi...wtj.html

For reference, Comet 67P has a semi-major axis (a) of 3.46 AU, and eccentricity (e) of 0.64.

Feb 22, 2019
excavated at Tempel 1...

How did it compare with prediction?

"That cloud, as it turns out, was not composed of water, ice, and dirt as one might presume given that comets have long been called 'dirty snowballs' or 'icy dirtballs.'* Instead, Deep Impact's instruments indicate that this huge cloud was made up of very fine, powdery material...

"The major surprise was the opacity of the plume the impactor created and the light it gave off,"....

"That suggests the dust excavated from the comet's surface was extremely fine, more like talcum powder than beach sand," he explained. "And the surface is definitely not what most people think of when they think of comets -- an ice cube."

...scientists are reporting only "weak emission from water vapor and a host of other gases" that were expected to erupt from the impact site"...

"It's pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher."

http://www.planet...701.html

Feb 22, 2019


http://www.planet...701.html


Read the papers, dickhead, instead of Thornhill's links to press releases immediately after the event, when the data from the spacecraft, as well as other satellites, hadn't even been seen.
8 - 18 000 tonnes of ice excavated. Plenty of water vapour seen. Thornhill might trick you gullible fools with that tactic, but nobody else is buying it.

Investigation of dust and water ice in comet 9P/Tempel 1 from Spitzer observations of the Deep Impact event
Gicquel, A. et al.
https://www.aanda...-11.html


Feb 22, 2019
Note the asteroid guy admits these may be dormant comets, that have the morphology as asteroids. A claim made per the electric comet.
For reference, Comet 67P has a semi-major axis (a) of 3.46 AU, and eccentricity (e) of 0.64.

For that reason, the arc discharges observed on longer period comets was not expected. This is why only glow mode cathode jets were observed.

Feb 22, 2019
Note the asteroid guy admits these may be dormant comets, that have the morphology as asteroids. A claim made per the electric comet.
For reference, Comet 67P has a semi-major axis (a) of 3.46 AU, and eccentricity (e) of 0.64.

For that reason, the arc discharges observed on longer period comets was not expected. This is why only glow mode cathode jets were observed.


No arc discharges nor cathode jets have ever been seen at comets. Stop lying, you freak.

Feb 22, 2019
Note the asteroid guy admits these may be dormant comets, that have the morphology as asteroids. A claim made per the electric comet.


Why would they be dormant, you dozy twat? Because they have run out of volatiles in the near-surface. They are still on the same orbits that the EU f***wits claim will cause an impossible charge differential. Why does it suddenly stop? Christ you people are thick. You are so wedded to this mythology-based crap, that you dismiss all the evidence that shows it to be wrong and/ or impossible, just so you can carry on with your religion. Pathetic imbeciles.


Feb 22, 2019
8 - 18 000 tonnes of ice excavated.

LOL, that's some good science there. Constrain this!

"It's pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher."...

As the article above states;
A key ramification of the result, Farrell said, is that every exposed body of silica in space—from the Moon down to a small dust grain—has the potential to create hydroxyl and thus become a chemical factory for water.

All those much smaller than expected grains became water factories.

Feb 22, 2019
8 - 18 000 tonnes of ice excavated.

LOL, that's some good science there. Constrain this!

"It's pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher."...

As the article above states;
A key ramification of the result, Farrell said, is that every exposed body of silica in space—from the Moon down to a small dust grain—has the potential to create hydroxyl and thus become a chemical factory for water.

All those much smaller than expected grains became water factories.


Don't be fucking stupid, you dumb prick. That is not water they are detecting, dickhead, it is ice. And it is too warm for ice to form out there, shitforbrains. And why is this not happening to asteroids? Christ you are dumb. Comets are ejecting dust all the time, as detected. Why is that not turning into water, you stupid idiot? Go get an education, you dumb freak.

Feb 22, 2019
Why is that not turning into water, you stupid idiot?

Ta daaa! You just answered your maths fail from above.

it is ice. And it is too warm for ice to form out there,

You really don't like physics do you?
https://physicswo...erature/

Feb 22, 2019
The following will be a preview of jonesdumb's commentary which will follow in this thread;

Twat...Dickhead...shitforbrains...loser. Shit, you are thick

Tosser!

No dickhead...dummy

you dick...the guys an idiot

dumb as a bag of spanners. A total cockwomble

f**kwit

Wanker..What a bunch of dicks.

Hannes F***ing Alfven

F*** me, you are stupid!...dick

Dickhead...you f***wit., you ignorant poser.

dickhead... shitforbrains? Duh!

Dafuq


jonesdumb has been shown to be dreadfully wrong again, to protect his ego he will respond as a true meathead does.

Either jonesdumb is predictable, or I am clairvoyant. LOL!

Feb 22, 2019
Why is that not turning into water, you stupid idiot?

Ta daaa! You just answered your maths fail from above.

it is ice. And it is too warm for ice to form out there,

You really don't like physics do you?
https://physicswo...erature/


Idiot. If dust was turning into ice (impossible) we would detect it you dumb fuck Instead we detect dust. And the dust is entrained by gas, you stupid brainwashed fool.

Feb 22, 2019
The following will be a preview of jonesdumb's commentary which will follow in this thread;

Twat...Dickhead...shitforbrains...loser. Shit, you are thick

Tosser!

No dickhead...dummy

you dick...the guys an idiot

dumb as a bag of spanners. A total cockwomble

f**kwit

Wanker..What a bunch of dicks.

Hannes F***ing Alfven

F*** me, you are stupid!...dick

Dickhead...you f***wit., you ignorant poser.

dickhead... shitforbrains? Duh!

Dafuq


jonesdumb has been shown to be dreadfully wrong again, to protect his ego he will respond as a true meathead does.

Either jonesdumb is predictable, or I am clairvoyant. LOL!


Sorry? Where was I shown to be wrong, you thick twat? Do the maths, dickhead. Why are we seeing ice and vapour where the solar wind is not reaching? Fucking thick as pigshit, you lot. You are a brainwashed, scientifically illiterate cultist. You know Jack about science, and are not interested in learning.

Feb 22, 2019
If dust was turning into ice (impossible)

Dust is water factory as described above, then freezes due to electric field as linked. Not impossible, just physics.

Feb 22, 2019
The following will be a preview of jonesdumb's commentary which will follow in this thread;

Twat...Dickhead...shitforbrains...loser. Shit, you are thick

Tosser!

No dickhead...dummy

you dick...the guys an idiot

dumb as a bag of spanners. A total cockwomble

f**kwit

Wanker..What a bunch of dicks.

Hannes F***ing Alfven

F*** me, you are stupid!...dick

Dickhead...you f***wit., you ignorant poser.

dickhead... shitforbrains? Duh!

Dafuq

jonesdumb has been shown to be dreadfully wrong again, to protect his ego he will respond as a true meathead does.


Either jonesdumb is predictable, or I am clairvoyant. LOL!


Sorry? Where was I shown to be wrong, you thick twat? Do the maths, dickhead. Why are we seeing ice and vapour where the solar wind is not reaching? Fucking thick as pigshit, you lot. You are a brainwashed, scientifically illiterate cultist.


OMG! Bwahahahaha!


Feb 22, 2019
Come on dickweed, show us the science. 8 - 18 000 tonnes of ice = 8 - 18 000 m^3 of ice. Equals 8 - 18 million litres of water. Equals 8 - 18 million x 3.35 x 10^25 molecules of water. How much solar wind flew by in the time these observations were made? Clueless dickhead.

Feb 22, 2019
If dust was turning into ice (impossible)

Dust is water factory as described above, then freezes due to electric field as linked. Not impossible, just physics.


Wrong, shitforbrains, and nobody is claiming this. Only you. And you are as thick as pigshit. Do the maths, thicko. Prove it. Write a paper you clueless, brainwashed fraud.

Feb 22, 2019
OMG! Bwahahahaha!


Where was I shown to be wrong, you thick twat? Get on with it. Prove me wrong, you clueless tosser.

Feb 22, 2019
Freezing Transition of Interfacial Water at Room Temperature under Electric Fields
Choi, E. M. et al
https://pdfs.sema...8f9d.pdf

Requires liquid water. Not found in space, or at comets. Only vapour. Requires 10^6 V/m! Requires a confinement distance of nanometers. Space is a bit bigger than that. Any more irrelevant shit you want to link to, you hopeless cretin?

Feb 22, 2019
And this is the same cantthink who said elsewhere recently that he believed in empirical science! Yet here he is, dismissing direct observation so that he can hang on to a scientifically impossible, mythology-based, quasi-religion. For which there is not one jot of evidence. And a shed load against. And all dreamed up by scientifically illiterate, Velikovskian clowns.
That, ladies and gentlemen, should tell you everything you need to know about the electric universe idiots. Whatever EU is, it has nothing to do with science.

Feb 22, 2019
Requires liquid water. Not found in space, or at comets. Only vapour.

So there is a process that you may have heard of, it's called "sublimation". It's where ices transition to vapor skipping the liquid part. I think someone claims this occurs on comets. Well, kicker is, the same process (Deposition or desublimation) can occur in reverse. No liquid water needed. I brought up the room temp freezing to show that temperature alone is not the only factor in the freezing process. Clearly, this is not "impossible" as you believe.

Feb 22, 2019
OMG! Bwahahahaha!


Where was I shown to be wrong, you thick twat? Get on with it. Prove me wrong, you clueless tosser.

It has nothing to do whether you think you are right or wrong. It has everything to do with irony. Thanks for the laugh!

Feb 22, 2019
Clearly, this is not "impossible" as you believe.


Yes it is. That is why not a single scientist is suggesting such idiocy. To get from the vapour phase to the ice phase you need something very cold on which to condense. That would usually be a dust grain at ~ 30 K. You will find that the dust around Tempel 1, and other comets, is considerably warmer than that. Try ~ 350 K.

Feb 22, 2019

It has nothing to do whether you think you are right or wrong. It has everything to do with irony. Thanks for the laugh!


There is no irony in you being wrong all the time. It is a very predictable outcome. As proven. And I am right. Ask any physicist.

Feb 22, 2019
To get from the vapour phase to the ice phase you need something very cold on which to condense. That would usually be a dust grain at ~ 30 K. You will find that the dust around Tempel 1

I know, you wanna see what it looks like when it happens?
https://science.n...nowstorm

Feb 22, 2019
To get from the vapour phase to the ice phase you need something very cold on which to condense. That would usually be a dust grain at ~ 30 K. You will find that the dust around Tempel 1

I know, you wanna see what it looks like when it happens?
https://science.n...nowstorm


Nope, idiot, that is ice from subsurface which is excavated by CO2 jets, as observed. It did not form there! Lol. It will not last long before subliming, as the article says. Luckily for the spacecraft. Just for the hard of thinking, you could have water ice overlaying, CO2 ice. When the Sun heats the comet surface, the heat will penetrate to depth. By the time it reaches the water ice layer, there may not be enough heat to cause it to sublimate. Water ice sublimates at ~ 150 K. However, a little further down, at the CO2 ice layer, it will still be warm enough to sublimate the CO2, which sublimes at ~ 70 K.

Feb 23, 2019
oh cant, you & the rest of the woomongering fakirs have no reputation to protect.
Your constant repetition of stuporstitious nonsense, outed you all, long ago.

Mar 08, 2019
cantdrive85 - are you also of the opinion/belief that the moon and other celestial bodies are flat discs conveniently facing us perpendicular to radial lines?
I'm not sure how you are able to claim that jonesdave is wrong; having not cited any useful evidentiary support that is based on laws of science.
A change in phase of a material (water) requires the addition or removal of energy. You are suggesting that a gas changes to ice via the *addition* of energy? That's not how it works. Ice is solid because it is at a LOW energy state.
In any case, it's clearly evident that jonedave's argument is considerably more legitimate (one might even say correct, given that math is a language that I comprehend), and any further insistence contrary to that is folly. Please give up and join Flat Earth society.

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