A better understanding of the chemistry of comets may finally explain the 1908 exposion over an isolated part of Russia
On 30 June 1908, a bolide streaked across the skies above Lake Baikal near the border of Russia and Mongolia. Seconds later, a huge explosion above the taiga some 600 kilometres to the northeast flattened an area of forest the size of Luxembourg and went on to scorch trees for hundreds of kilometres around.
The detonation took place in a more or less uninhabited part of Russia called Tunguska but the explosion lit up skies across the northern hemisphere for three nights, interfered with the Earth's magnetic field and triggered strong seismic and acoustic waves that shook the entire planet.
Despite a century of study, many aspects of the Tunguska event are still unexplained. For example, the explosion released more energy than a thousand Hiroshima-type atom bombs and yet left no crater. A similar-sized object is thought to have hit North America some 12 000 years ago, triggering the megafaunal extinction and widespread cooling. And yet the Tunguska event seems to have left our climate intact.
Now a new analysis by Edward Drobyshevski of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St Petersburg Russia claims to have solved these problems. Drobyshevski concludes that the object that hit in 1908 was a comet (as have many scientists before him). But unlike the others, he has been able to calculate that this comet hit the Earth's atmosphere almost at a tangent and broke apart.
The larger part of this comet skipped off the atmosphere, back into an Earth-crossing orbit (we should expect to find it nearby, predicts Drobyshevski).The smaller part rapidly heated up above Russia before exploding in the atmosphere over Tunguska.
The key to why it left so little lasting damage is the nature of the explosion, says Drobyshevski. And the key to that is our improved understanding of the chemical make up of comets. He says the comet would have had a high hydrogen peroxide content and this would have dissociated explosively as it heated up to produce oxygen and water, breaking the comet apart. It was this explosion that devastated Tunguska.
"Significantly, the energy of the chemical explosion is substantially lower than the kinetic energy of the body," says Drobyshevski.
This explains the comet's relatively benign affect on the planet and solves many of mysteries associated with the event, he says.
Interesting idea--why should all cometary impacts be head on affairs? If correct, it looks like we've had a lucky escape, this time.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0903.3309: Tunguska-1908 and Similar Events in Light of the New Explosive Cosmogony of Minor Bodies
Update 30/3/09: Edward Drobyshevski writes to correct an error in this post. He says:
"In http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23234/ you write: "He says the comet would have had a high hydrogen peroxide content and this would have dissociated explosively as it heated up to produce oxygen and water, breaking the comet apart." It is incorrect statement. I never said about the hydrogen peroxide. I am saying on the solid-state solution (=clathrate) of hydrogen and oxygen (=products of the volumetric electrolytical decomposition of the dirty ice) in the low-temperature ice under the great pressure and continuous solid-state thermal convection in the parent planetary body (not in the comet nuclei themselves).Please, reread my articles and correct the text."
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
These ideas are not taken very seriously by the rest of the planetary science community. Drobyshevski has woven this into an almost Velikovsky-like narrative, using it to explain, well, just about everything. Note in several papers he, "argues convincingly for the need of sending missions to Callisto to test the possibility of explosion of its still unexploded ices, which would provide a real threat to the very existence of Mankind."
Upon examining his collect works:
http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Drobyshevski_E/0/1/0/all/0/1
...it is not surprising he is drawn to the Tunguska event, which is a magnet for fringe ideas.
Andrew_Higgi...
03/29/2009
Posts:2
I wonder if Edward Drobyshevski's ideas are as fringe as a large comet impacting the Laurentide ice sheet in 12,900 BP? Or as fringe as Ms. Dallas Abbott's ideas that these kinds of large cometary impacts happen with far more regularity than we suspect?
Sooner or later we need to start thinking about where these rogue comets or icy bodies are coming from. And I must myself wonder if Mr. Drobyshevski's ideas are as fringe as global warming and climate change, given some of the previous statements and publications of the MIT Technology Review.
Finally, I think Mr. Andrew Higgins should research and rethink some of the fringe ideas of the past, and what they allow him to do today. What interests me most about Edward Drobyshevski's breakthrough ideas is that they help explain the periodic millennial scale comet bombardments which we are beginning to now discern in the paleorecord. This is an area of research that is just beginning, as you well know, and now we seem to have both the suitable experimental and theoretical starting points with which to proceed.
elifritz
03/29/2009
Posts:2
Pjazzz
03/30/2009
Posts:14
The criterion to sort out the good ideas from the bad ones in science is the good ones are useful and, given time, they will be used. Drobyshevski has been publishing variations of this idea (i.e., that currents are induced in icy bodies in the solar system, which electrolyze the water ice into hydrogen and oxygen, which remains metastable until it reaches concentrations that permit the entire body to explode) since 1980. Yet no one takes the idea seriously.
This is not because some establishment rejected the idea. Indeed, Drobyshevski’s work appears in the more prestigious journals (Icarus, Advances in Space Research, etc.). However, have they proven useful to other researchers?
I’ve tracked Drobyshevski’s publications on the ISI Web of Science <http://www.isiwebofknowledge.com/>, and I cannot find a single other journal paper that cites his ideas (except for later papers by Drobyshevski himself). You can do a similar analysis using Google Scholar <http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Drobyshevski>, and you’ll find a similar result: no one cites Drobyshevski but Drobyshevski.
I could only find a single NASA report from 1986 that considered, and rejected, his idea in a single paragraph:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870004782_1987004782.pdf
"Drobyshevski (1980, 1982) has proposed a method called 'volume electrolysis' whereby unipolar generator currents in icy planets such as Europa could produce large quantities of hydrogen and oxygen in the interior, which could subsequently be ignited upon meteoric impact. He suggested that over time, the buildup of the gases could be large enough that the explosions could be of near-planetary proportions and remove sufficient material to change the satellite mass significantly. If the current were limited to a value commensurate with that observed at Io the current were to pass through numerous cells in series to multiply the gas production. Drobyshevski proposes that inhomogeneities in the ice would provide these cells; although it is not obvious how such a series of cells could be produced, the current could pass around such cells rather than being forced through them. In any event, if the electric field were similar to that now present at Europa, ohmic losses in the ice should reduce the current by many orders of magnitude from that which he proposed."
There is no harm in this; the scientific literature is full of directions that didn’t pan out. That’s what most research is (my own included).
However, I would hope that the Physics arXiv Blog would do a bit more of vetting of papers and researchers before publicizing them. Posting unusual or provocative ideas is fine, but my understanding was the purpose of this blog was to put them in context that a more general readership could appreciate. As such, there should be some effort to caveat papers from authors who have been pushing unsuccessful or discredited ideas for decades.
Andrew_Higgi...
04/02/2009
Posts:2
Of course you don't. Your ideas are never fringe. But you have no problem pointing out how fringe other's ideas are. How much money have you blown on your fringe idea, compared to how much money Mr. Drobyshevski has blown on his fringe ideas?
There is no harm in this; the scientific literature is full of directions that didn’t pan out. That’s what most research is (my own included).
Then what, pray tell, is your specific problem with it? Other than you don't agree with it.
However, I would hope that the Physics arXiv Blog would do a bit more of vetting of papers and researchers before publicizing them.
As far as I know, hope isn't a widely embraced scientific method in the world. It seems to be the prevalent scientific method in the United States lately, though. I would suggest that if you have any specific problems with any of inestimable Mr. Drobyshevski's arguments, then you should and could present counter evidence of your own to back up your skepticism, rather than WHINING on a blog published by a periodical which in the past has routinely published opinions counter to the scientific consensus backed up my NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. This is an ideal place to do so, so let's hear it.
Posting unusual or provocative ideas is fine, but my understanding was the purpose of this blog was to put them in context that a more general readership could appreciate.
In other words, expressing skepticism to new and unusual ideas by labeling those ideas 'fringe', and then declining to participate in most of the consensus methods of scientific refutation. Bravo Mr. Higgins. Heckava job. Just a heckava job. One can only laugh at people who continue to express skepticism at a fringe idea like a large 12,900 BP cometary impact in North America well after convincing and irrefutable evidence has been presented, and then label people as 'fringe' who try to explain periodic millennial scale large cometary impacts with creative and interesting reasoning, which may or may not be entirely correct, but may contain a nucleus of an idea worth pursuing. It's better to deny the scientific world of ideas, right? No 'space elevators' for you.
Here is a 'fringe' data point for you :
Clovis Comet Astrobleme Remnant
As such, there should be some effort to caveat papers from authors who have been pushing unsuccessful or discredited ideas for decades.
Such as Mr. Alfred Wegener's fringe 'continental drift' idea? Or Dallas Abbott's fringe idea of large Holocene comet impacts? Or the Clovis group's demonstration that this does in fact occur? Or Edward Drobyshevski's fringe ideas on how they might occur? Or my fringe idea of where precisely they may have occurred? Think it through, Mr. Higgins, you can do it! We're all rooting for you, and honestly we would welcome and appreciate any help you can offer us in the understanding of our universe. Fringe is a label of honor in this field. There is nothing wrong with being wrong in science, but there is something wrong with not even trying.
elifritz
04/03/2009
Posts:2