Talk:Heliospheric current sheet

message: Rhat is probably one of the stupidest analogies i have ever heard. 
have these people ever seen a ballet? do they know anything about ballet?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.3.108.140 (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's what plasma physicists imagine a ballerina's skirt to look like. One has spiral flutes, the other radial flutes. --Iantresman (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Bashful ballerina

message: I and a few other editors are attempting to gather together the scattered articles dealing with the heliosphere into one big article that takes on the topic whole. The current sheet is an important part of the heliosphere's structure and it seems logical that it be merged. Serendipodous 18:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the Heliospheric current sheet is a sufficiently distinct structure, with enough detailed information, that supports an article of its own. I also think that an separate article gives scope for expansion, and I doubt whether you'd want to include all of it in an article on the heliosphere. --84.9.191.165 21:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the Heliospheric Current Sheet should remain separate. However, the issue could probably be resolved by adding a "short section" to the Heliosphere article briefly summarizing the current sheet article, and with a link "main article here" pointing toward the HCS article from the subsection of the heliosphere article. I think that's how many other "conglomerate" articles like "the sun" do it. Might be a workable solution, yeah? Mgmirkin 17:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with heliosphere

message: Pardon my ignorance, I was wondering if the 'photo' of the heliospheric current sheet is an actual photo of it or is it a representation of the sheet??  If it is a real photograph, where would the sun actually be within this sheet??  I appologize if it is in the article and that I missed it.Mylittlezach (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I appologize, I now see the sun in the middle and some eliptical lines around it, but I still would like to know if it is an actual photograph or not.  If it is, is this sheet only visable with a certain - well, not sure what to call it.Mylittlezach (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The images are diagrams not photos nor even images from some magnetic or electrical recording device. Presumably they represent where the magnetic field points directly towards the sun ? What determines the depth of the folds in degrees above and below the sun's equator ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it a photo

message: The Heliospheric current sheet is described by a number of sources as the largest structure in the heliosphere. Unless you have some sources that say otherwise, this is not ambiguous. If you have a problem with the wording, then by all means clarify it, but leave the meaning. --Iantresman 00:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The magnetosphere of the sun is larger than the heliosphere by virtue of pure dimensional analysis and a thickness argument. No citation necessary, just common sense. There are also plenty of other structures that can be pointed to which dominate the entire extent of the heliosphere. Again, no citation necessary. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay so point to them with a simple citation. I'm sure there's plenty of literature from reliable sources, yes? Likewise, if Heliospheric Current Sheet is referred to as the "largest structure" let's cite that too. Or it could be re-worded to something like "The Heliospheric Current Sheet is one of the largest structures in the heliosphere, including the IMF, and X, Y, Z..." That should satisfy all, yes? Opinion and "common sense" are nice and all. But "common sense," isn't so common to everyone. So, citations wouldn't hurt on either side of the issue. Mgmirkin 17:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest structure

message: It is stated that the current is 5 microTeslas; shouldn't that be 5 nanoT? Chrystomath (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a reference to the magnetic field which mentions that the "magnetic field produced by this current is B ~ 5x10-6 T" in the first paragraph of the "Magnetic field" section. --Iantresman (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heliospheric field value 

message: 68.188.203.251 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: and what happens to the spiral sheet during a magnetic reversal ? Does the sheet flatten out ? - Rod57 (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current sheath changes due to solar polarity 

message: The image at the top of the article (Heliospheric current sheet) shows a double spiral, having 2 'arms', but the second image (Parker spiral) shows a single spiral, and the article describes a Parker spiral as a form of Archimedean spiral, which only have 1 'arm'. So which image is correct? I suggest that the other be removed. nagualdesign (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Article still has the two inconsistent images. Reading the explanation as due to the suns field not being a perfect and aligned dipole, the double spiral sounds more likely, and suggesting that the depth of the spirals is exaggerated in the images. - Rod57 (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images don't match 

message: hey in the section LITERALLY titles "Ballerina Skirt Spiral" or whatever, y'all introduce this guy "Eugene Parker" and then repeatedly call the Ballerina Skirt Spiral a "Parker Spiral".
idk, it seems kinda odd that it's referred to at the opening of multiple paragraphs as a "Parker Spiral" rather than a "Ballerina Skirt Spiral", while the latter is a rather descriptive term for the spiral sheet, "Parker Spiral" doesn't tell us anything besides some dude named "Parker" had something to do with it. please stop referring to things with rather descriptive names as "X's {object/concept/whatever}" with X being some dude who we don't really talk about that much in the article and who actually didn't even first describe the phenomenon... sure maybe he predicted it based off theoretical models or something, but does that really give him precedent to have hus name slapped all over something that we already headed with a substantially more descriptive title?
just askin 2600:6C47:A03F:C443:9D17:5DED:8873:8522 (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ballerina skirt suggestion