Talk:Polar wind
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
 | The contents of the Plasma fountain page were merged into Polar wind on 2011-10-11. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. | |
Confirmation?
[edit]I removed this line from the article:
- "The mission comfirmed that Earth has an ambipolar electric field."
which was added by @Artem.G and was sourced to the Collinson, Glyn A.; et al. Nature article discussed in the paragraph.
The line implies confirmation was necessary, but no sourced claim was made to that effect. The article cited does not claim to confirm the field nor does it discuss the possibility that this field in any way needs confirmation. As discussed in the article and sourced to multiple reviews, this electric field is well established. Thus this confirmation is not notable. What is notable is the measurement. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- well, NASA consider it to be important:
Using observations from a NASA suborbital rocket, an international team of scientists has, for the first time, successfully measured a planet-wide electric field thought to be as fundamental to Earth as its gravity and magnetic fields
. And "ambipolar electric field" is redirected to this page, but never mentioned or discussed, so I think it's worth to be included. Artem.G (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)- oh, i just realized you merged that article. Sorry, was inattentive. I still think that confirmation of its discovery is important, but will return later to reread the article Artem.G (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion this NASA press release is doing its job: creating the maximum interest in the mission NASA funded. I think we should wait for a review, a secondary source, before accepting the claim. To be clear, I'd agree to more NASA based sources for less expansive claims. But the primary published and peer-reviewed paper backing the press release makes no such claim. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
"short description" for the article
[edit]Second opinions are needed. (My 'bold edit' did not mention magnetosphere, something i should have considered, at least.--I don't have plans for other edits on "short description"). 2001:2020:341:DD6F:9D15:6EA3:F4D2:F4D8 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please see WP:SDNOTDEF. These set the "field of study". I change the short description to "High altitude atmospheric effect." Johnjbarton (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Fixing (small) stuff
[edit]"In low density plasma at high altitude is overwhelms gravity for light ions."--It overwhelms ... ?--Please fix (if you think it is reasonable). Regards from Norwegian-IP-123. 2001:2020:333:C6E5:217E:EF4E:67A2:FEC9 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation etc. (suggestion)
[edit]"After 30 years of research, the "classical" cause of the polar wind has been shown to be ambipolar outflow of thermal plasma: ion acceleration by a polarization electric field at high altitudes".--Yeah, i get it. However, i could also see how someone can 'tell themself' that 'yeah, near the North pole or South pole, yeah that would be near 90 degrees North or South, so high-latitude ...'.--Should one maybe write "high altitude (above Earth)", or put some quote - in the reference? Thoughts? 2001:2020:333:C6E5:217E:EF4E:67A2:FEC9 (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)