1998
DOI: 10.1006/icar.1998.5935
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Finite Lifetime Fragment Model 2 for Synchronic Band Formation in Dust Tails of Comets

Abstract: There is no theory that can explain the structures of the which is still unknown. A dynamic model for the formation SYBs perfectly. However, we review some of the theories mechanism of synchronic bands, which is based on the following process, is proposed. presented so far and point out the difficulties with them The complex particles of the aggregates of the unit particles (Nishioka et al. 1992). are ejected from the nucleus of the comet and disintegrate repeatedly into individual unit particles at various di… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
4
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
(4 reference statements)
2
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since this ratio of SYORP timescales is less than 1, each successive generation of chunks will have a shorter lifetime than the previous generation, leading to a runaway cascade of fragmentation. Such a cascade is consistent with the modeling of Nishioka (1998) and Jones & Battams (2014) for the creation of dust necessary to explain striae.…”
Section: Step 4: Runaway Fragmentation Cascadesupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Since this ratio of SYORP timescales is less than 1, each successive generation of chunks will have a shorter lifetime than the previous generation, leading to a runaway cascade of fragmentation. Such a cascade is consistent with the modeling of Nishioka (1998) and Jones & Battams (2014) for the creation of dust necessary to explain striae.…”
Section: Step 4: Runaway Fragmentation Cascadesupporting
confidence: 89%
“…(3) as a relatively long--lived fragmentation cascade (Nishioka 1998, Jones & Battams 2014. Regardless of the exact details of (3), these three conditions ensure that the pre--stria materials arrive at the source location of a stria as a single unit, where the parent materials are then transformed into a daughter fragment size distribution that creates the narrow lineaments oriented towards the Sun via anti-sunward acceleration.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although Nishioka (1998) proposed that step (2) could be a continuous fragmentation cascade, rather than a discrete fragmentation (or dispersion) event, the general model of Sekanina and Farrell (1980) agrees well with observations of several comets (Sekanina and Farrell 1980;Sekenina and Pittichová 1997). The primary difference in later models of stria formation (Sekanina and Farrell 1980;Mendis 1980, 1981;Froehlich and Notni 1988;Kharchuk and Korsun 2010;Jones and Battams 2014;Steckloff and Jacobson 2016) is in the details of the first two steps.…”
Section: Dust Dynamics and Resultant Tail Structuressupporting
confidence: 65%
“…Whether the submicron particles are emitted directly from the nucleus surface or are instead the product of a subsequent dust fragmentation process that occurs at the beginning of the striae (cf. the models of Sekanina and Farrell [], Pittichová et al [], and Nishioka []) is not clear—although the STEREO imagery would suggest the latter as a real possibility. Since the striae are typically only seen in very dusty comets at small heliocentric distances, we can posit the existence of a population of fractal, porous dust grains in these comets held together by materials that disrupts after a period of exposure to solar radiation and the solar wind, releasing a distribution of smaller grains that go on to form the clumps and the striae.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%