It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Significance
Whether water is produced by solar wind (SW) radiolysis has been debated for more than four decades. In this paper, we exploit the high spatial resolution of electron microscopy and sensitivity of valence electron energy-loss spectroscopy to detect water (liquid or vapor) in vesicles within (SW-produced) space-weathered rims on interplanetary dust particle (IDP) surfaces. Water in the rims has implications for the origin of water on airless bodies like the Moon and asteroids, the delivery of water to the surfaces of terrestrial planets, and the production of water in other astrophysical environments. In particular, water and organic carbon were likely delivered simultaneously by the high flux of IDPs accreted by the early Earth and other terrestrial planets.
The solar wind (SW), composed of predominantly ∼1-keV H+ ions, produces amorphous rims up to ∼150 nm thick on the surfaces of minerals exposed in space. Silicates with amorphous rims are observed on interplanetary dust particles and on lunar and asteroid soil regolith grains. Implanted H+ may react with oxygen in the minerals to form trace amounts of hydroxyl (−OH) and/or water (H2O). Previous studies have detected hydroxyl in lunar soils, but its chemical state, physical location in the soils, and source(s) are debated. If −OH or H2O is generated in rims on silicate grains, there are important implications for the origins of water in the solar system and other astrophysical environments. By exploiting the high spatial resolution of transmission electron microscopy and valence electron energy-loss spectroscopy, we detect water sealed in vesicles within amorphous rims produced by SW irradiation of silicate mineral grains on the exterior surfaces of interplanetary dust particles. Our findings establish that water is a byproduct of SW space weathering. We conclude, on the basis of the pervasiveness of the SW and silicate materials, that the production of radiolytic SW water on airless bodies is a ubiquitous process throughout the solar system.
Juris Doctorate – Capital University Law School 2011
BA Economics – Denison University 2006-2008
Econ/Meteorology – Penn State University (Schreyer Honors) 2003-2005
I am not a scientist, I am classically trained in economics and law, but have worked professionally in the investment field, primarily in a due diligence capacity. Turns out this has had some good implications for what I am trying to do on YouTube and here on this website.
Unity_99
They even have evidence of stars shooting out jets of water yet persist in lying about the dirty snowball comets....
wildespace
Ok, I can accept the genuine scientific research into this, and results it brings. But why should we listen to Ben Davidson? Who is he?
Juris Doctorate – Capital University Law School 2011
BA Economics – Denison University 2006-2008
Econ/Meteorology – Penn State University (Schreyer Honors) 2003-2005
I am not a scientist, I am classically trained in economics and law, but have worked professionally in the investment field, primarily in a due diligence capacity. Turns out this has had some good implications for what I am trying to do on YouTube and here on this website.
www.suspicious0bservers.org...
He also accepts donations. I think that's enough said.
I'd rather refer to genuine scientific articles: www.newscientist.com...edit on 22-1-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)
MarsIsRed
reply to post by Unity_99
Then please explain the observed spectra from comets.
The deep impact mission, which sent a probe out to impact comet Tempel 1, found the following:
1. The copper impactor generated such an energetic explosion that the primary mission sensors were swamped and the primary mission of photographing the crater was unable to be carried out. (Such a flash would be expected with a metal object approaching a highly charged object)
"We didn't expect the success of one part of the mission (bright dust cloud) to affect a second part (seeing the resultant crater). But that is part of the fun of science, to meet with the unexpected. "
Physicist Wal Thornhill commenting:
"It is now well documented that every scientist associated with the project was stunned by the scale of the energetic outburst. These scientists understood the kinetics of impact, and they all agreed that the explosion would be equivalent to 4.8 tons of TNT. That’s a good-sized bomb, but not even close to what occurred."
....
"Theories about the volatile layers (water ice) below the surface of short-period comets are going to have to be revised"
"All we needed was a factor of three boost from the impact to get a definite detection," said Qi. "We didn't see that."
"It's pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher," said SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). "The more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven't materialized, at least not yet."
Some more:
"There's a lot of structure on the comet, which is a bit surprising," Richardson said. "That could mean there's some strength to the comet."
...
A space telescope that usually studies the most powerful explosions in the universe has set its sights on an approaching comet. Its observations at ultraviolet and X-ray wavelengths should help reveal the comet's composition and 3D structure.
X-ray emissions? That's quite the snowball. I didn't know melting ice was capable of producing x-ray emissions violent enough to be studied by x-ray telescopes. I guess we can stop going to hospitals for x-rays and just pick up some ice from the local gas station now.
An image of comet Lulin in the x-ray spectrum:
nonsensical electric universe ideas
We are talking about a low density plasma stream of ions, colliding into material, in this case silicates, and bonding to form new molecules are you saying no electrochemical interaction takes place?
By mechanical collision are you implying that energy is conserved in the form of heat alone, not by release and trading electrons during chemical bonds?
Smashing dust and rocks just give us dusty rocks...not water.
But Im going to enjoy it for what it is, a discovery that means a lot in terms of habital planets, and space travel. If we understand enough about space, maybe we will start to see it as less baron and insurmountable. Think about the implications for space travel if you could harvest water during flight because we understand ways to generate it from plasma fields. That is a possibility now.
DJW001
reply to post by vind21
But Im going to enjoy it for what it is, a discovery that means a lot in terms of habital planets, and space travel. If we understand enough about space, maybe we will start to see it as less baron and insurmountable. Think about the implications for space travel if you could harvest water during flight because we understand ways to generate it from plasma fields. That is a possibility now.
You would still need to bring the raw materials, or gather them up from vast volumes of space.