Talk:Solar wind

message: yow people whay? is there a solar wind..... who has discovered it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.17.132.42 (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why and discovery 

message: is there any relation between the temperature of the earth and solar winds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.17.132.42 (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth temp and solar winds 

message: The idea of the solar wind carrrying the sun's magnetic field with it is wrong. Electric currents create magnetic fields. The solar wind is creating its own magnetic fields and interacting with the existing solar magnetic field.They are locked in a feedback loop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.145.72.189 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wind carrying magnetic field 

message: Plasma is not a gas. Plasma follows its own rules just as a gas behaves differently than a solid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.145.72.189 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plasma is not a gas 

message: I just thought about this: Could solar wind be a significant source of the formation of heavy isotopes of hydrogen by the fusion of high velocity protons and neutrons? The small proportion of neutrons in solar wind should follow a newtonian trajectory, while the protons follow one that is also influenced by magnetic fields. There is thus the possibility of collisions between these two particles. This might be more likely when the protons are within the influence of the magnetic fields of planets, as this would cause the protons and neutrons to follow quite different paths and thus accelerate relative to each other. If this mode of fusion is exothermic it might account for some of the 'unknown' energy that accelerates the solar wind that the article refers to. Any opinions?--ChrisJMoor 03:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deuterium says "Stellar fusion destroys deuterium, and there are no known natural processes (for example, see the rare cluster decay), other than the Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which might have produced deuterium at anything close to the observed natural abundance of deuterium."  Helium-3 mentions "helium-3 is thought to exist on the Moon (embedded in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over billions of years)".  (SEWilco 04:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: proton-proton fusion takes a lot of energy.  Solar wind is not really that energetic.  The energy spectrum of the electrons and ions in the solar wind is on the order of 100 - 10,000 eV. DonPMitchell (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question: Formation of heavy [[isotopes]] of hydrogen in solar wind?

message: Mars's atmospheric pressure makes one's farts more condensed, therefore causing a stronger and more pungent aroma, especially when solar winds blow it around.
Should this section really appear in this article? It sounds like a joke. Init 19:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Farts in the martian atmosphere?

message: How many newtons per square meter could solar wind exert on an object at 1 AU from the sun, outside earth's magnetic field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwr42 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did some calculations, if I made no major errors: starting from 10^6 t/s mass loss, the earth r=6300 km with area pi*r*r in 149.6*10^6 km distance "catches" about 450 g/s of it. Now most of this is in the kinetic energy of the particles (although it is probably not completely absorbed into acceleration due to reflection and heat, but remember we are doing rough estimates here).. sqrt(400g*c*c*2/m_Earth) seems to yield an effect in the magnitude of 10^-4 .. 10^-5 m/s². This is of course basically nothing, but if I remember correctly, planetary orbits are "stable" (ie. once taken they run forever, they lose micro amounts of energy by coupling effects), thus this small "push" can add up since it is not self-correcting? (For a "real" calculation you would have to compare the potential energies between different orbits of the earth, you cannot simply multiply 10^-5 m/s² with seconds, orbits do not work this way) Yes, I did this calculation to find out whether solar wind could be a candidate for the mystery "growing" [] of the AE. Has no one thought of that ever before? If this is potential explanation, the effect should be non-linear, since other planets have different densities and are farther away from the sun. Should be worst with the inner planets. You can comment to areau.gans at arcor de. --145.253.2.238 (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs quantitative estimate 

message: The entry for Mercury states that it has a magnetosphere strong enough to deflect the solar wind, and that while its low gravitational pull prevents it building up a significant atmosphere, it does have detectable amounts of various gases from a variety of sources. This article implies strongly that the solar wind scours all gases from the planet. There appears to be a conflict.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.235.134 (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Mercury has a weak magnetosphere that provides some protection for the surface. But it apparently isn't strong enough to have saved most of the atmosphere. The planet is much closer to the Sun than the Earth, so it gets a higher flux of particles. It also has a lower gravity and a higher temperature, which likely didn't help matters.—RJH (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question About Mercury's Magnetosphere and the Solar Wind 

message: I was disappointed to find no remarks regarding the distribution of the solar wind. It seems likely that it is either highly irregular and unpredictable or focused about the ecliptlic plane. Francis of Hochbergm 8/2/08 --Francis of Hochberg (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this article is in much need of further development.—RJH (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Heliospheric current sheet says "The solar wind is guided by the Sun's magnetic field and hence largely emanates from the polar regions of the Sun;" but cites no source. Is it true, and how do we know? - Rod57 (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacial Distribution 

message: I think that interplanetary medium is basically a fork article that doesn't mention anything not in this article. I think this article could safely swallow it. Serendipodous 16:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a merge, it should go the other way, as the solar wind is really a component of the interplanetary medium (which contains neutral gas and dust, in addition to the solar wind (ionized gas)). (I've had little if anything to do with either article, though.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interplanetary dust cloud points out that small particles are a major part of the interplanetary medium which is different from the solar wind.  I think those two articles should be merged since they are both rather short.  The solar wind is actually somewhat complex, so I think it merits its own article.  But if there were a merge, "interplanetary medium" should be the resulting title. -- Beland (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I think I'd prefer to keep them separate. To me it seems that interplanetary medium is a sub-component of the interstellar medium, and it is already discussed on the latter page. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: with Heliosphere? Serendipodous 13:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are both fairly decent sized articles with room for growth. While the subjects are related, I'm not sure what the benefit would be of merging them. The pair don't quite satisfy Wikipedia:Merge#Merging.—RJH (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: OK, what about merging 

message: Ions. So can someone provide a list of ions and their relative abundance/flux in the solar wind? What it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.113.189 (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the solar wind? 

message: The article on solar sail says "The force due to light pressure is about 5,000 times as strong as that due to solar wind". In this case, how can solar wind be considered responsible for the tail of comets rather than light pressure ? I understand it may be the case for the gas part of the tail if the cross section of an atom (or generally what this gas is made of) is much smaller with respect to light than with respect to elements of the solar wind (electrons and protons); but for dust particles I guess the radiative pressure dominates.
Also, a very approximate calculation from this figure together with a value of solar wind speed of 600 km/s, suggests that the total mass loss of the Sun each year due to sun-light through E=mc2 is about 10 times largerr than the one due to solar wind. This would be worth mentioning together with more exact figures.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoirier (talk • contribs) 14:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with radiative pressure 

message: I read a scientific paper, published way back in 1991, about the interaction between the solar wind and the geomagnetic field. The author seems to think that the length of the solar cycle is related to variations in earth's temperature.
I wonder if anyone else has tried to correlate solar activity and things like cloud formation. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of people have - with varying degrees of success and often contradictory results. One of the more interesting studies concerns the possible effect of cosmic rays (the flux of which is modulated by the solar cycle) on the formation of clouds and thus the ability of the atmosphere to reflect incoming heat. They're not (as far as I am aware) proposing that this can account for global warming but it's an interesting study none the less. [] DanielWent (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Correlation with climate change

message: Although I don't have access to the Birkeland paper referenced in [2], I believe (based on comments in  "Rethinking the History of Solar Wind Studies: Eddington's Analysis of Comet Morehouse") that the sentence should read:
:In 1916, Birkeland was probably the first person to successfully predict that, "From a physical point of view it is most probable that solar rays are neither exclusively negative nor positive rays, but of both kinds," suggesting that the solar wind consists of both negative and positive ions.
--Kmote (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  small edit to History 

message: "The Sun's corona, or extended outer layer, is a region of plasma that is heated to over a million degrees Celsius. As a result of thermal collisions, the particles within the inner corona have a range and distribution of speeds described by a Maxwellian distribution."
What is supposed to be a thermal collision? I guess is that collisions are due to thermal heating, but imho stated like that is quite unclear.--79.20.34.174 (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear term 

message: We need to say more about the solar cycle and sunspots. The solar wind varies--in density, velocity, temperature, and magnetic field properties--with the solar cycle.  --Uncle Ed (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Solar cycle and sunspots

message: Early in the article, it is mentioned that the solar wind is comprised of Protons and Electrons.
In the "Planetary surfaces" section it ends with "enriched in atomic nuclei deposited from the solar wind".
My question is - where did the neutrons come from? I am unclear as to whether there is the assumption that some electrons merge with protons to create neutrons. Or whether the solar wind strips electrons off of ordinary matter, leaving atomic nuclei behind.
Or are neutrons part of the solar wind to begin with? If not, why not - is there something about charge that causes the initial acceleration?
Or possibly there is something understood but not directly presented here.
pcG
PcGnome (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for more information in the "Planetary surfaces" section on the main page 

message: "Ions" is an incomplete answer.  Ions are charged particles.  What kind of charged particles?  Electrons?  Protons?  Alpha particles?  He+?  muons?  what? 74.82.132.35 (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, really, what is it made of? 

message: The usage of  is under discussion, see talk:Stellar Wind (code name) -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "{{noredirect|Stellar Wind}}"

message: The usage of the word in the second paragraph seems silly at best, saying a few hundred miles an hour and then immediately after claiming a million.  It also has little or even ambiguous relevance in space as "supersonic" on Venus is certainly different than on Earth.  
129.130.41.55 (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Solar wind velocities at Earth distance from the Sun range from a few hundred km/sec up to, occasionally 2 or 3 thousand km/sec. This is extremely fast, and it is faster than the speed of "sound" in the solar wind, or the velocity at which waves in the solar wind propagate (sorry, but I don't know that value off the top of my head). Point being, that the solar wind flow velocity is, yes, supersonic, and this description applies to the medium itself, the solar wind, not for Venus or Earth atmosphere. Note, when the solar wind arrives at the Earth, a bow shock is generated. This is due to the fact that the solar wind is passing by the Earth at supersonic velocities. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention of "supersonic" in this context is still very misleading, as neither this article nor the article about supersonic speed explains the speed of sound in the interstellar medium. --Vektorweg (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

text: I propose adding the following note to the word "supersonic": "The speed of an imaginary object placed at a fixed distance from the Sun is faster in the frame of reference moving with the solar wind than the local ion acoustic speed." Thoughts? --46.242.12.64 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

text: "Supersonic" is the correct term used. The speed of sound depends on the density of the medium. The term is not a fixed value. It has nothing to do with down on Earth speed of sound's value. In fact for the same reason the speed of sound on Earth changes with altitude. The vacuum is not empty, hence, it does transmit sound. Mightyname (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Supersonic" 

message: Substituted at 06:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: * http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/ - "The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s ..."
* ftp://space.mit.edu/pub/plasma/publications/jdr_soho/jdr_soho.pdf - "The solar source is at space-age lows both in terms of solar wind plasma flux and magnetic field strength [McComas et al., 2008]" 
* https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries/ - "The current long-term decline in solar activity set in after the last grand solar maximum peaked in 1956, says Lockwood. The decline has accelerated recently, and the absence of sunspots this summer has set alarm bells ringing."
I'm not seeing this covered in the article, at all. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 23:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar wind decrease 

message: Heliospheric current sheet says "The solar wind is guided by the Sun's magnetic field and hence largely emanates from the polar regions of the Sun;" but it does not seem to be mentioned in this article. What is known about the properties of the solar wind away from the ecliptic or the suns equator ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What distribution by latitude ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Solar wind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920221334/http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov/science/index.html to http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov/science/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304072916/http://archive.cosmosmagazine.com/news/solar-wind-ripping-chunks-mars/ to http://archive.cosmosmagazine.com/news/solar-wind-ripping-chunks-mars/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Sun radius  : Earth orbit radius yields around 0.0043 or sth.     Surface goes square so we have  50.000 times as much mass density of solar wind on Sun surface.
exact values to our knowledge? Wikistallion (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't extrapolate that far. The 1/r^2 scaling only works if the radial velocity is constant, and it isn't once you get close to the Sun. We don't know the radial velocity profile all the way in, and I'm not even sure exactly what the "surface" of the Sun means. Fcrary (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  density of sunwind on Sun surface... 

message: "Solar wind" is just the term we use to refer to stellar wind caused by our star. We don't make independent articles for all terms of this type, so why this one? 199.45.195.249 (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with "Stellar wind"