ITN: CO2 Powers Hartley !

[CraigS]

Yeah .. the Pressure is getting to me on this thread !

Seems to be a good idea to wait for the paper on all this.
Its probably too early to expect one from Ms Sunshine.

Its all very interesting though. The jet action over a long period of time would also effect the orbit. Its interesting that the jets are coming from the dark side rather than the sunlit side, too. (It rotates over an 18 hour period).

Thanks everyone for being involved in this thread.

I've actually enjoyed it !

Plenty to learn about when it comes to comets !

Cheers

[Outbackmanyep]

The findings haven't quite confirmed exactly what is happening but it does vindicate the models of ice sublimation by comets.
There still is a lot of unanswered questions though, it's only a matter of time until we do get to know.
Im stoked with the images and the findings and am wanting always to learn more, it'll be interesting to see what else is being found!

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

It also vindicates the prediction that water ice is not the main driver of cometary jets.

[CraigS]

On man .. just when I was having fun ..

G'day Alex.

PS: No plasma visible in the photos, either !!

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Yeah .. the Pressure is getting to me on this thread !

Seems to be a good idea to wait for the paper on all this.
Its probably too early to expect one from Ms Sunshine.

I wonder if Ms Sunshine has interests in Solar astronomy.

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

I wonder if Ms Sunshine has interests in Solar astronomy.

Steven

Well .. I mean .. there's the missing link right there !!
The Plasma Queen of comet watching !!


Cheers

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Last time we saw you here, you were chasing Mr Pressure !

Nah... some of these guys sound scary to me.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD8BuJPGExE (see 43:54)
Q: [Emily Lakdawalla] "I'm really really struck by the bouldery nature of this thing, and how similar it looks to itokowa the small asteroid visited by hayabusa, and i'm wondering if people think that realy tiny solar system objects are more bouldery or if it's just a coincidence"

A: [Dr Jessica Sunshine] "Well I wouldn't use the world bouldery, because bouldery implies rocks. And ittokawa is probably rocks and is dominated by ejecta processes from impacts. This is very different. I honestly can't say exactly what we call clumps, there's a reason we chose a vague word like clumps... but it's not consolidated rock for sure. So... you know... putting them together... yeah.. they have different processes... they have different gravity"

Emily has a point there they ignored her 'nightside' 'jets' question too. Kudos to Emily for seeing a 'rock'. heheh

It'll be nice when these theorists define the words they are using!!! grrr

[CraigS]

Ahhh Alex, matey (er .. .brother)…

It'll be nice when these theorists define the words they are using!!! grrr

If they did that, there'd be no more mysteries …. and mysteries is what gives life some substance … and uncertainty … something we all share in common!.. ??…

Cheers

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

hah. what an easy job aye...

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Emily has a point there they ignored her 'nightside' 'jets' question too. Kudos to Emily for seeing a 'rock'. heheh

It'll be nice when these theorists define the words they are using!!! grrr

Emily didn't see 'a rock'. She said 'bouldery' and Jessica used the term 'clumps'. Wouldn't you say it looked like a conglomeration of something smooth (obviously there's solid CO2 there somewhere) and some rough looking bits. No one said anything about 'rock'.

I mean, there is dust carried off by the CO2 jets. There also H2O coming off it too. Its mass is pretty low, (just like others). If it was consolidated rock, it'd be heavy, wouldn't it ? Maybe some 'stones' in there, but no big consolidated rock.

Also, it seems the jets also come off the lit side. (Not exclusively the dark side). The reports of the dark side jets are because that was a surprise. This doesn't mean that there's only dark side jets.

Cheers

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

We need to be careful of assumptions.

Yes i am with emily, it looks bouldery... and since most things bouldery are rock i'm ok with 'rock'. So on this point i might disagree with Sunshine, and i don't know what Emily means by Bouldery, so i'm going to have to go with the english definition "bouldery - abounding in rocks or stones"

Jessica will need to define 'clumps', before i can pay attention to her there.?!? she said she honestly can't say what 'clumpy' means?

So i am left confused.

I mean, there is dust carried off by the CO2 jets.

Yes, there are competing theories as to 'how' this is carried off. MS = internal jets dragging. EU = electro sputtering (similar process to cover scope mirrors). So we don't have any firm basis to exclude rock here.

There also H2O coming off it too.

Careful now. There is H20 spectra around the nucleus. MS says there is partial water ice from the jets. EU says it's OH radical forming electrically from solar wind interaction with O from nucleus, not from a jet. The distinct lack of surface ice supports EU here. Again we cannot rule out rock. MS has invoked subsurface hidden ice.

Its mass is pretty low, (just like others). If it was consolidated rock, it'd be heavy, wouldn't it ?

Here we could be leaning towards that, but we cannot exclude the possibility of a geode. But yes mass is an interesting one, i'd like to explore this more. i dunno.

Also, it seems the jets also come off the lit side. (Not exclusively the dark side). The reports of the dark side jets are because that was a surprise. This doesn't mean that there's only dark side jets.

ofcourse there are sunside jets, dark-side jets, and particularly interesting are these photographed 'ridge of jets' see 20:05. Plasma discharge particularly follows like this, and has been written about by both Peratt and Thornhill.

What could we expect from mainstream hypothesis regarding the ridge of jets? (bearing in mind, this is a 1mile ridge!!)....
Possibly a sub-surface trench of ice? hmmm seems unlikely? It would have to be a pre-existing subsurface condition yeah? thats the only explanation for sub-surface sublimation no?

Fascinating pictures... I'm again struggling to see dirty snowballs here, or to figure out what causes a 1 mile row of jets. What happens if that 'row' moves... and tracks across the surface.... (not that it has).... wouldn't that be a difference we could look out for? i wonder.

See 20:05 - [Dr Sunshine] "Whats fascinating about this image... there is a line of jets which is illuminating....We have jets in the night time, we have jets along the edge, we have jets in the sun"
"And this is probably a gooder place as any to admit that we have alot of work to do to try and understand whats going on here"

nfi.

[CraigS]

Isn't 'the row' just an illusion from the angle of viewing ?
Methinks its discharges from all over it !

I'll have to have another look.

And they have spectrographic evidence !

Sorry Alex .. I think the following is a quantum leap .. (even for you):

cmon. Those 'line of jets' in a row is screaming a plasma discharge, a surface effect of the cellular electrical interactions no?

Where's the evidence for that one ?

Even according to ya mate Peratt, there'd be some kind of spectroscopic data left behind if it was a plasma discharge !! Jessica is a guru on this and she didn't mention any remarkable plasma discharges !!

Cheers

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Isn't 'the row' just an illusion from the angle of viewing ?

Watch the video and explanation again Craig. It's clearly described by Sunshine, as a ridge of jets. Judging from the attached scale indicator, i read the linear ridge of individual jets to be 1mile long.

It is clear that there is a preferred geometry for these emissions that relate to either surface features (as pointed out by that other old dude)... (and is probably required by standard-sublimation)..... or the linearly arranged emissions relate to something else. Since this is way less than the 18hrs of rotation, we wont know if the emissions move in a line (indicating a highly electrical interaction), or if the jets are fixed in existence during their thermal cycle (you would think this is required by a sub-straum sublimation theory).

From these images we do not have a definitive answer, although some creative explanations for linearly arranged jets are required for subsurface sublimation. I can only think of some form of sub-surface structure... it all seems highly unlikely... i dunno... i await these ideas.

I will again find the edm papers. It is not a jump to suggest plasma discharges in cylindrical rows, this is exactly the morphology of auroral discharge, and exactly what we find in laboratory experiments, hence another expected feature of electric discharge.

Plasma exists in dark mode, glow mode and arc mode discharge. So it does not necessarily mean it will always produce what i think you are searching for.

As an example, for perspective, these photos were taken looking through a plasma (the solar wind).

The key difference between the comet models here are electro-dominant-emission-processes, vs thermal-jet-driven-processes.

It is very clear.

[CraigS]

Ok .. so here's the released spectrograph results (albeit a bit crude . and dumbed down ..)

but even if your plasma was in dark mode, there'd have to be be some kind of reasonably large spectral signature in the 2 to 5 micron region to account for the jet activity. Plasma isn't invisible across the bands these guys were looking over. If it was close to flipping into the glow mode then it would be emblazened across the whole thing (same for arc mode). It would have to be in the dark mode and there'd still be some kind of signature …?

They say there's organics: methanol, etc. but nothing else.

Cheers
PS: I haven't had a chance to look over the footage again about the line of jets .. standby. Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Ok .. so here's the released spectrograph results (albeit a bit crude . and dumbed down ..)

The spectrum completely and utterly refutes a plasma discharge mechanism.

Apart from the obvious hydroxyl and carbonyl peaks corresponding to water and CO2 respectively, the spectrum is an absorption spectrum.

A plasma discharge will produce a continuous emission spectrum across the IR range.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

The spectrum completely and utterly refutes a plasma discharge mechanism.

Apart from the obvious hydroxyl and carbonyl peaks corresponding to water and CO2 respectively, the spectrum is an absorption spectrum.

A plasma discharge will produce a continuous emission spectrum across the IR range.

Regards

Steven

Yes. After I wrote my last response to Alex, I was thinking I didn't express where I was coming from very clearly.

I've been trying to chase a few things up since I wrote it ..

I'm not sure whether there'd be any effect on an absorption spectrum being taken of the escaping gases, (taken simultaneously), as this hypothesised, sustained 'dark mode' build up was occurring. (Ie: if it even was occurring at all).

If both were happening, presumably, the gases would be getting hotter and the ionisation levels would be greater, so I'd guess we might see more ionised compounds in the absorption bands (?)
As far as emission spectra are concerned, presumably this could only be visible if the energy levels were great enough to either move any ionised gases into the 'glow' or 'arc' regions (beyond 'dark' mode).

But the thing that also doesn't add up in Alex's hypothesis, is that there would have to be either of these active, visible discharge mechanisms happening, in order to generate the forces necessary to create the visible, collimated structure of jets.

And what the scientists have determined (from the absorption spectra) is a definitive conclusion that they are just plain CO2 gas jets !

Interesting.

Cheers

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Strawman steven.

How can you make the conclusion that the gases are emitted from the subsurface, as opposed to the hypothesis that the O-(from comet) and H+ (solar wind) combine to form hydroxl in the near atmosphere?

This would provide for absorption spectra.

Emission spectra from surface activity would be so localized and spiratic, i do not see these images having the resolution to determine this, the majority of the spectra would of-course be the absorption, this has always been the hypothesis of the electric comet.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=nq9zna2m
As explained earlier, electrical sputtering of rocky minerals on the comet nucleus will tear molecules apart, producing O- ions which combine with protons (H+) from the solar ‘wind’ to produce OH. The sunward side of the coma is the place where the coma is most compressed and where we should expect OH to be most concentrated.

The localized CO2 signature, usually identified by carbon monoxide (CO), most likely represents sputtering from a localized carbon-containing mineral. It must also be considered that CO ions will have a unique trajectory under the influence of electromagnetic forces associated with the cathode jets. Once again, this finding doesn’t necessarily represent the sublimation of carbon dioxide ice. In fact, “it seems that CO is produced only in part by the cometary nucleus and in greater proportions by some extended source in the coma,” which suggests perhaps recombination of carbon and oxygen ions at some distance from the nucleus should also be considered.

Anyways... any ideas on the ridge of jets craig/steven? I'm very puzzled as to that feature, and how a sub-surface sublimation model can produce that? must be a pre existing subsurface structure... puzzling?!? enlighten me.

[CraigS]

Y'know Alex;

Man, I feel for ya (just a little bit )

You choose an extraordinarily difficult path when you reject or ignore anything coming from anyone who actually has the data in front of them.

In this case, they've stated publically, that they don't even have the full set of data downloaded, yet (120K photos).

This kind of forces you into a corner, which then forces you into having to come up with an answer, before anyone else has even examined the data (let alone, asked the relevant questions) !!

Honestly anything that comes up in this conversation will be purely conjecture, supposition and my 'belief' vs your 'belief'!

Why don't we wait until they've published their findings and then discuss it ?

Who knows why there might be a ridge of jets ?? I'm not even sure there is, let alone what might have formed it !!! I don't have access to detailed scientific value photos and I doubt whether you do either (??).


(Nothing personal or anything .. I'm just sayin' … )

Cheers
PS: Can you define "electrical sputtering" ??? What does that mean ??

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Yes. After I wrote my last response to Alex, I was thinking I didn't express where I was coming from very clearly.

I've been trying to chase a few things up since I wrote it ..

I'm not sure whether there'd be any effect on an absorption spectrum being taken of the escaping gases, (taken simultaneously), as this hypothesised, sustained 'dark mode' build up was occurring. (Ie: if it even was occurring at all).

If both were happening, presumably, the gases would be getting hotter and the ionisation levels would be greater, so I'd guess we might see more ionised compounds in the absorption bands (?)
As far as emission spectra are concerned, presumably this could only be visible if the energy levels were great enough to either move any ionised gases into the 'glow' or 'arc' regions (beyond 'dark' mode).

To add further to the what you have stated Craig.

Absorption occurs when the energy of the absorbing photons from the Sun, is not large enough to push electrons in the atoms of CO2 or water into higher energy states. Instead the energy impacts on vibration or bending of the molecular bonds.
For example the O-H and C=O bonds in water and CO2 respectively vibrate and have a specific resonance frequency. IR photons of the same frequency can be absorbed as a result.

The mechanism for emission in this circumstance is completely different. The charged particles in the plasma are producing a continuous emission spectrum.

Suppose we try to combine the two and claim the water and CO2 are effected by radiation emitted from the plasma. That doesn't work either. The higher energy photons absorbed will shift the reasonance frequency or destroy the bonds through ionization.

You will not observe the absorption spectrum given by NASA.

Regards

Steven