Talk:Polar wind

Proposed merge of Earth's ambipolar electric field into Polar wind

I've copied and integrated most of the content of "Earth's ambipolar electric field". At this point that topic is not sufficiently notable to be separate from Polar wind. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Per discussions on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Can_any_encyclopedia-article_title_here,_start_with_these_exact_words? I assume that @Dicklyon supports this merge. @Andrew Davidson as creator, please weigh in. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I am 'a Norwegian IP', and i have voiced opposition (on another wikipedia), about (its) "Ambipolar electric field" article - since the end of August.--Within half a week, i hope to have copied, to this talk page - the main (relevant) arguments, that until now, have been used (on talk-pages on wikipedia), about what is 'not okay' about the article, "Earth's ambipolar electric field".--However, I am absolutely not asking anyone to wait, about giving their own opinion, or to wait about referring to the views of others, or facts stated by others.--And yeah, Merge is what i am leaning (hard) toward, and justification for that, should follow within, say, a 'few' days. Thank you. 2001:2020:31B:D1A2:45B3:3A4:A6D4:6CA9 (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Update from 'a Norwegian IP' : I am not displeased about 'aggressively bad stuff' having been removed from (relevant) articles on English-wiki.--For now, I am leaning toward Neutral, in regard to Merging-before-Delete.
('Spinning a snowball-Keep', seems at least as doable as other options.)--I am guessing that a dozen of minor threads, will be started over the next seven days; there might be c. no drama in that. Regards! 2001:2020:305:DCFD:1084:26CA:F3C4:A50F (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Merge. The topic is inherently part of the discussion of the polar wind and it doesn't serve readers to separate the context. Fences&Windows 10:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Johnjbarton (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Crystal-clear, or not?

"It is one of several mechanisms for the outflow of ionized particles and it typically refers to ions accelerated by ambipolar electric fields ". 2001:2020:31B:D1A2:45B3:3A4:A6D4:6CA9 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Johnjbarton (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

C/e needed?

"Additional mechanisms including ion acceleration by solar photoelectrons escaping along magnetic field lines".--Comment: "includes" - would that be a 'better word'? 2001:2020:31B:D1A2:45B3:3A4:A6D4:6CA9 (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Johnjbarton (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

"In region the polar wind, the ionospheric plasma expands and the low density allows gravity to pull ions down relative to the electrons in the plasma."--From Causes (section).--"In the region of the polar wind" - is maybe not too far off? 2001:2020:30D:A266:584B:B4EA:E71D:37BE (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks to user:Johnjbarton. 2001:2020:329:CFB8:B895:31DB:311D:503B (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

"Research" section or in the lede or (possibly) where?

'Research stepping-stones' etc. in regard to the decades of research - should that be in History section or Research section?

"Ions accelerated by a polarization electric field (also known as an ambipolar electric field) is believed to be the primary cause of polar wind, according to a research paper in 2020; furthermore, similar processes operate on other planets."

(For now, the article could (arguably and) easily be interpreted as 'almost all' research stems (or stemming) from the 2022 rocket-flight.) 2001:2020:305:DCFD:1084:26CA:F3C4:A50F (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. I have made additions to clarify in any case. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Many (most?) readers will come here to find out more about the '2024 music-video from NASA', or just video.--One reads about a 2022 rocket-flight, so one could (easily?) conclude that 'most' of the 'results or information', are from years 2022 to 2024.--If year 2020 (and 'its' paper is not a milestone), then which year(s) between 1960 and 2020, have 'the milestone(s)?--That there is no hurry to fix this, is sort of my view.--User:Johnjbarton has a steady hand on the rudder, it seems. Much of the article's text is now quite fine, and some might be excellent. Regards! 2001:2020:331:9A41:A02C:EC8D:EB24:5952 (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:305:DCFD:1084:26CA:F3C4:A50F

Year 1968, seems to be 'only' mentioned (in the wiki-article), in regard to coining the phrase Polar wind. If the year is a milestone for the research, then that might not be clear from the wiki-article.--No big deal, for now, I might add. 2001:2020:331:9A41:A02C:EC8D:EB24:5952 (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The year of at least one of the satellites, should perhaps be mentioned.--1969 had the ISIS-2 satellite.--If it feels obvious, which of the satellites could be considered 'more important than the others', then please let this Talk page, know. 2001:2020:331:9A41:C6B:E252:C84F:90BF (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to user:Johnjbarton. 2001:2020:353:C55B:9CCD:B045:AAC4:1DBD (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Link and 'spelled-out-name', needed

"electrons, and the ions H⁺,He⁺, O⁺ are the primary ingredients in the polar wind; O⁺ dominates at below 4000km".

'Hydrogen-ion that has lost its electron, and has become nothing more than a proton
Ionised helium, or He⁺ 'Helium-ion with one positive charge', "He+"
'oxygene-ion with one positive charge'.--Thank you in advance. 2001:2020:8365:6F2A:8445:AA6C:5F10:D7EB (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:8365:6F2A:8445:AA6C:5F10:D7EB (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Measurements (section), has now been tweeked. 2001:2020:8365:6F2A:8445:AA6C:5F10:D7EB (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Different fields use different terminology for the same thing, mostly with good cause. In the case of the Ionosphere the components are called ions, not, for example, protons. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The following diff, might be more in line with what user:Johnjbarton, is saying.

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polar_wind&oldid=1246844997
. 2001:2020:C307:F6E4:29D3:62D7:8F34:608C (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:8365:6F2A:8445:AA6C:5F10:D7EB

Supersonic velocities in relation to topic about Space

"all three ion species reach supersonic velocities above 7000km".--If one is "outdoors in Space", then there is no speed of sound, one might say.--One could perhaps say something about velocities ... compared to speed of sound in the Earth's atmosphere. Thoughts? 2001:2020:8335:7BC0:B81A:D3A9:7E09:2F9F (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the speed of sound in space is relevant in this article and is any way a quite complex topic. We can stick to the what the reference says. I added a quote and page number for convenience. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Confirmation?

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

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)