- Thank you received: 0
Deep Impact
19 years 4 months ago #13322
by brantc
Replied by brantc on topic Reply from Brant Callahan
If the comet is negatively charged and its discharging to the positive solar wind(ion-electron exchange), the discharge will "erode" areas where the arcs(bright spots) are. As the discharge is taking place, O (and other)atom are torn off and recombine with protons(H) from the solar wind forming OH.
Electrical discharge machining
[Categories: Metalworking, Metallurgy]
"Electrical discharge machining (or EDM) is a method of working extremely hard (The tangible substance that goes into the makeup of a physical object) materials or materials that are difficult to machine cleanly using conventional methods. It is limited, however, to (Click link for more info and facts about electrical) electrically conductive materials. EDM can cut small or odd-shaped angles, intricate contours or cavities in extremely hard (An alloy of iron with small amounts of carbon; widely used in construction; mechanical properties can be varied over a wide range) steel and exotic metals such as (A light strong gray lustrous corrosion-resistant metallic element used in strong light-weight alloys (as for airplane parts); the main sources are rutile and ilmenite) titanium, (Click link for more info and facts about hastelloy) hastelloy, (Click link for more info and facts about kovar) kovar, (A nickel-base alloy with chromium and iron; used in gas-turbine blades) inconel and (A binary compound of carbon with a more electropositive element) carbide.
Sometimes referred to as spark machining or spark eroding, EDM is a nontraditional method of removing material by a series of rapidly recurring (Electrical conduction through a gas in an applied electric field) electric arcing discharges between an (A conductor used to make electrical contact with some part of a circuit) electrode (the cutting tool) and the work piece, in the presence of an energetic dielectric field. The EDM cutting tool is guided along the desired path very close to the work but it does not touch the piece. Consecutive sparks produce a series of micro-craters on the work piece and remove material along the cutting path by melting and (The process of becoming a vapor) vaporization."
Electrical discharge machining
[Categories: Metalworking, Metallurgy]
"Electrical discharge machining (or EDM) is a method of working extremely hard (The tangible substance that goes into the makeup of a physical object) materials or materials that are difficult to machine cleanly using conventional methods. It is limited, however, to (Click link for more info and facts about electrical) electrically conductive materials. EDM can cut small or odd-shaped angles, intricate contours or cavities in extremely hard (An alloy of iron with small amounts of carbon; widely used in construction; mechanical properties can be varied over a wide range) steel and exotic metals such as (A light strong gray lustrous corrosion-resistant metallic element used in strong light-weight alloys (as for airplane parts); the main sources are rutile and ilmenite) titanium, (Click link for more info and facts about hastelloy) hastelloy, (Click link for more info and facts about kovar) kovar, (A nickel-base alloy with chromium and iron; used in gas-turbine blades) inconel and (A binary compound of carbon with a more electropositive element) carbide.
Sometimes referred to as spark machining or spark eroding, EDM is a nontraditional method of removing material by a series of rapidly recurring (Electrical conduction through a gas in an applied electric field) electric arcing discharges between an (A conductor used to make electrical contact with some part of a circuit) electrode (the cutting tool) and the work piece, in the presence of an energetic dielectric field. The EDM cutting tool is guided along the desired path very close to the work but it does not touch the piece. Consecutive sparks produce a series of micro-craters on the work piece and remove material along the cutting path by melting and (The process of becoming a vapor) vaporization."
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 4 months ago #13324
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
Preliminary <i>Deep Impact</i> findings by cooperating teams were posted today:
metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/Deep...t%20Findings%201.asp
These prelims look favorable to EPH/SM, but are not yet showing any of the effects the competing models hoped for. -|Tom|-
metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/Deep...t%20Findings%201.asp
These prelims look favorable to EPH/SM, but are not yet showing any of the effects the competing models hoped for. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 4 months ago #13325
by brantc
Replied by brantc on topic Reply from Brant Callahan
"The major surprise was the opacity of the plume the impactor created and the light it gave off," said Deep Impact Principal Investigator Dr. Michael A'Hearn of the University of Maryland, College Park. "That suggests the dust excavated from the comet's surface was extremely fine, more like talcum powder than beach sand. And the surface is definitely not what most people think of when they think of comets -- an ice cube."
And here is what happened in the words of NASA investigator Peter Schultz, describing the event recorded from the spacecraft:
"What you see is something really surprising. First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose”."
So it doesnt have any ice. The impact was brighter than expected. "quick rise in ultraviolet light." Could be an arc. The pictures look like a plasma discharge. This could an indicate objects spectrum is dependant on its electrical interaction with its surroundings. The way the rays are straight fanned out from the impact site instead of up and down and there were no chunks of rock, it was all dust from the arc. Of course I'm not an expert on everything. I dont know how this would fit with the MM. www.impulsedevices.com
And here is what happened in the words of NASA investigator Peter Schultz, describing the event recorded from the spacecraft:
"What you see is something really surprising. First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose”."
So it doesnt have any ice. The impact was brighter than expected. "quick rise in ultraviolet light." Could be an arc. The pictures look like a plasma discharge. This could an indicate objects spectrum is dependant on its electrical interaction with its surroundings. The way the rays are straight fanned out from the impact site instead of up and down and there were no chunks of rock, it was all dust from the arc. Of course I'm not an expert on everything. I dont know how this would fit with the MM. www.impulsedevices.com
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 4 months ago #13357
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by brantc</i>
<br />The impact was brighter than expected. "quick rise in ultraviolet light." Could be an arc. The pictures look like a plasma discharge.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Does everything look like a plasma discharge? In what way does this look more like a plasma phenomenon than an ordinary impact in which the probe vaporizes (flash) and lots of dust is ejected (second brightening)? If there was supposed to have been an electrical arc (lightning), none was seen, direvtly or indirectly.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">there were no chunks of rock, it was all dust from the arc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The best resolution achieved was 4 meters. Anything that small or smaller was indistinguishable from dust. You were maybe expecting house-sized chunks? Unlikely.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Of course I'm not an expert on everything. I dont know how this would fit with the MM.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The competing model here is the exploded planet hypothesis (EPH) and its corollary the Satellite Model (SM) for comets. Its main prediction was that the comet would be visually indistinguishable from an asteroid, and have a strength-dominated, solid rocky nucleus (under the dust regolith layer). It also predicted minimal water and volatiles and no new jet, all of which distinguish it from the Dirty Snowball model.
What one prediction distinguishes your model from all others? -|Tom|-
<br />The impact was brighter than expected. "quick rise in ultraviolet light." Could be an arc. The pictures look like a plasma discharge.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Does everything look like a plasma discharge? In what way does this look more like a plasma phenomenon than an ordinary impact in which the probe vaporizes (flash) and lots of dust is ejected (second brightening)? If there was supposed to have been an electrical arc (lightning), none was seen, direvtly or indirectly.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">there were no chunks of rock, it was all dust from the arc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The best resolution achieved was 4 meters. Anything that small or smaller was indistinguishable from dust. You were maybe expecting house-sized chunks? Unlikely.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Of course I'm not an expert on everything. I dont know how this would fit with the MM.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The competing model here is the exploded planet hypothesis (EPH) and its corollary the Satellite Model (SM) for comets. Its main prediction was that the comet would be visually indistinguishable from an asteroid, and have a strength-dominated, solid rocky nucleus (under the dust regolith layer). It also predicted minimal water and volatiles and no new jet, all of which distinguish it from the Dirty Snowball model.
What one prediction distinguishes your model from all others? -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 4 months ago #14229
by brantc
Replied by brantc on topic Reply from Brant Callahan
Its part of the Electric universe model started by CF Bruce, Anthony Peratt
Hanes Alfvren, Kristian Birkeland, Walt Thornhill, etc.
Their model doesnt say much about gravity or the Aether.
I agree that a comet is the same as an asteroid. Same scenario for
everything except that when you have an elliptical orbit the comet goes
from an area of less charge to an area of more charge which produces the
comet effects. Nobody has explained the straight jets or the shiny spots, what
the mechanism is.
"First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash"
That would be the "arc". Small or whatever. Spectrographic analysis will tell.
"more like talcum powder" If there was any clumping I think(should not use that word)
it would have showed up as some sort of shadow even at 4 meters. I dont know how an
impact would produce only "talcum powder" sized particles. Analysis will tell.
The eroded surface looks more like(IMO) EDM machining.
The impact was brighter than expected even for the hard rock(y) model. I'm sure NASA has spent lots of time shooting projectiles at rocks with their hyper-velocity gun.
Also some of these comets start lighting up pretty early, near Saturn, (IMO) for sunlight to be the cause of sublimation? as its called. What about the outbursts? I bet that you find them to be timed with fluctuations in the solar wind. What about the sunward spike seen on some comets. Where does that come from?
There is more to the activity in our solar system than heat and gravity. The solar system is 99% plasma. The comets move through plasma. Bodies in a plasma develop a Langmuir Sheath. There are magnetic fields and electric currents. These bodies are either moving across or parallel to a potential as related to the Sun. You cannot discount the electrical force.
Now I could go further and say that the Sun is electricaly powered and that there is so much electrical activity that stars, planets or comets can become "over charged" and fission or explode. Then you could apply the EPH. I have followed your stuff for years, Tom.
Like you say, "Follow the data"
My only loyalty is to a cohesive model for everything. Yours is a big piece.
Here are the exact predictions, I couldnt remember everything.
www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=hcabb8zj
Here is a good link.
www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm
Hanes Alfvren, Kristian Birkeland, Walt Thornhill, etc.
Their model doesnt say much about gravity or the Aether.
I agree that a comet is the same as an asteroid. Same scenario for
everything except that when you have an elliptical orbit the comet goes
from an area of less charge to an area of more charge which produces the
comet effects. Nobody has explained the straight jets or the shiny spots, what
the mechanism is.
"First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash"
That would be the "arc". Small or whatever. Spectrographic analysis will tell.
"more like talcum powder" If there was any clumping I think(should not use that word)
it would have showed up as some sort of shadow even at 4 meters. I dont know how an
impact would produce only "talcum powder" sized particles. Analysis will tell.
The eroded surface looks more like(IMO) EDM machining.
The impact was brighter than expected even for the hard rock(y) model. I'm sure NASA has spent lots of time shooting projectiles at rocks with their hyper-velocity gun.
Also some of these comets start lighting up pretty early, near Saturn, (IMO) for sunlight to be the cause of sublimation? as its called. What about the outbursts? I bet that you find them to be timed with fluctuations in the solar wind. What about the sunward spike seen on some comets. Where does that come from?
There is more to the activity in our solar system than heat and gravity. The solar system is 99% plasma. The comets move through plasma. Bodies in a plasma develop a Langmuir Sheath. There are magnetic fields and electric currents. These bodies are either moving across or parallel to a potential as related to the Sun. You cannot discount the electrical force.
Now I could go further and say that the Sun is electricaly powered and that there is so much electrical activity that stars, planets or comets can become "over charged" and fission or explode. Then you could apply the EPH. I have followed your stuff for years, Tom.
Like you say, "Follow the data"
My only loyalty is to a cohesive model for everything. Yours is a big piece.
Here are the exact predictions, I couldnt remember everything.
www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=hcabb8zj
Here is a good link.
www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 4 months ago #13364
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by brantc</i>
<br />Nobody has explained the straight jets or the shiny spots, what
the mechanism is.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Every model has an explanation. The EPH's is that the "jets" are flashlight beams in the coma dust created by the opposition effect acting on the bright patches on the nucleus.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I saw the live feed too. The second event was not properly describable as a "flash", but rather as a prolonged brightening as the dust cloud expanded.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't know how an impact would produce only "talcum powder" sized particles.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It didn't. That was the comet's regolith being ejected from the explosion site. Many larger-sized chucks from the sub-surface were also ejected.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The impact was brighter than expected even for the hard rock(y) model.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, it was just about right for the rocky model. Some of the Dirty Snowball's advanced predictions had the comet reaching naked-eye brightness, which would have been another factor of five or more brighter.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also some of these comets start lighting up pretty early, near Saturn, (IMO) for sunlight to be the cause of sublimation?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In EPH/SM, the comet always carries its coma with it. None of the coma came from the nucleus, by sublimation or any other process. The coma is an orbiting debris cloud from the parent planet explosion.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What about the outbursts?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">They looked pretty much like the one caused by the probe, just smaller. Small asteroid impacts would have that effect.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What about the sunward spike seen on some comets. Where does that come from?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is seen when, and only when, Earth passes through a comet's orbital plane. It is numerous meteor streams in the comet's orbit that can only be seen when viewed cumulatively, edge on from within the orbit plane.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The solar system is 99% plasma.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That seems a strange statement. But even if it could be justified, what good is it? Gravity and solar radiation have done a nice job of predicting and explaining what we see outside the Sun's outer corona.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You cannot discount the electrical force.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">For something that cannot be discounted, we've done a pretty good job of discounting it for a long time now. The electric model may have some applicability on other scales. But in the solar system, it is still a solution looking for a problem.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My only loyalty is to a cohesive model for everything.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Stick with that idea. It will take you far. -|Tom|-
<br />Nobody has explained the straight jets or the shiny spots, what
the mechanism is.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Every model has an explanation. The EPH's is that the "jets" are flashlight beams in the coma dust created by the opposition effect acting on the bright patches on the nucleus.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I saw the live feed too. The second event was not properly describable as a "flash", but rather as a prolonged brightening as the dust cloud expanded.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't know how an impact would produce only "talcum powder" sized particles.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It didn't. That was the comet's regolith being ejected from the explosion site. Many larger-sized chucks from the sub-surface were also ejected.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The impact was brighter than expected even for the hard rock(y) model.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, it was just about right for the rocky model. Some of the Dirty Snowball's advanced predictions had the comet reaching naked-eye brightness, which would have been another factor of five or more brighter.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also some of these comets start lighting up pretty early, near Saturn, (IMO) for sunlight to be the cause of sublimation?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In EPH/SM, the comet always carries its coma with it. None of the coma came from the nucleus, by sublimation or any other process. The coma is an orbiting debris cloud from the parent planet explosion.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What about the outbursts?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">They looked pretty much like the one caused by the probe, just smaller. Small asteroid impacts would have that effect.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What about the sunward spike seen on some comets. Where does that come from?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is seen when, and only when, Earth passes through a comet's orbital plane. It is numerous meteor streams in the comet's orbit that can only be seen when viewed cumulatively, edge on from within the orbit plane.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The solar system is 99% plasma.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That seems a strange statement. But even if it could be justified, what good is it? Gravity and solar radiation have done a nice job of predicting and explaining what we see outside the Sun's outer corona.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You cannot discount the electrical force.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">For something that cannot be discounted, we've done a pretty good job of discounting it for a long time now. The electric model may have some applicability on other scales. But in the solar system, it is still a solution looking for a problem.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My only loyalty is to a cohesive model for everything.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Stick with that idea. It will take you far. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.230 seconds