Talk:Ambipolar electric field

Help needed

Please help flesh out this article, using simple English. For example, it needs to include the forces role pushing up the sky, and its role in the polar winds needs explicating. Kdammers (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Needs one line, that says: "Polar wind is ...".--When we have that line, I can ' copy it into an article' about "Polar wind".--If that is regarded as helpful, then fine.--While y'all do that, i will be fixing other articles. 2001:2020:323:D3CA:446A:FEEC:D94A:7361 (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

An upcoming goal, would be to translate section,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_wind#Measurements

. The stuff that has been curated by 'The chemistry professor' at En-wiki, has no fluff or puffery.--The following will likely be at the end of that translated section;

"The polarization or ambipolar electric field was measured in 2022 by a rocket launched from Svalbard; That electric field was directly measured; The rocket that did the measurement, was a sounding rocket." 2001:2020:349:CF90:A962:499E:D375:EED1 (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

There exists one (1) peer reviewed article.

I'm not sure if there should be a wikipedia article, about a scientific topic claimed by one nature paper that has been published 5 days ago. Let's give other scientists in the field time to read the claims and see if it is accepted. If there is an article it should be formulated as a hypothesis that is claimed to have been measured by xyz. 128.176.10.74 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can nominate for Delete (and i support Delete).--@128.176.10.74:, and so can you.--I will gladly help with adding to that discussion - every relevant argument that has been voiced at Simple-wiki.--I hope to see you (or anyone), in the nominator's seat.--I will be fixing other articles (and i will be back for the Delete discussion, when that starts to roll.) 2001:2020:333:985B:6406:6A0F:3BA9:C0D3 (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Simple Talk started a discussion, a few days ago (in case anyone needs inspiration, for nominating for Delete). 2001:2020:333:985B:6406:6A0F:3BA9:C0D3 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Link, Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Red_flags_of_science_(popping_up_again). 2001:2020:309:B6CE:9077:8512:D054:1003 (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

There are some more secondary sources now: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/electric-field-in-earths-atmosphere, https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a62060859/ambipolar-electric-field/, https://news.google.com/read/CBMi4AFBVV95cUxPOS1qSEtxWWxMRlg4cWRtWjRSSUoyYzF1SUJicEMzWWhvSmc0TDA4Y3dUMkZwQTRfN2Yxblp0M0c1cG5IeFN4Q1pmZFZxdEdLY1Jic0ZBMmR2NjFhR21KWS02TGFkRzM0R0dCR0RLOHM0Mm5LLWZUc3hVanAxRjVJZG1PZHVhN0JDX19wdHVMQ0RuR1g3VmRPYTRUNkxmRzRlOGNIOWZtUUUzZ1NvYzdCbFQyWmpwS3dsaGpUY0M1dGNNX0l0TW84RW9JZ2NHSmlxZEtYUHJoNGtyUGR0U0t5Xw?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen, https://news.google.com/read/CBMi0AFBVV95cUxOYktITVhzSlZwU2lxWUxQSDhlbUJxUlV3YkxPX195Y0lSR3ZsaFZTODRHaWs3NW5JY2FZZHlxOENiOU5ha0NCR2xfR21JNmUybS1ZcldTckVqQzJpUW9xejdGLVpRaXV4cThLSlhTQkltWUNmLV9wSDFwNV92WkJOcVdGcEdaY1k3TkhBNmJNTzJTUThKV0NqZ1FtSk5mSHRvem1jUlZIRm5KS2JVTFl6Zy16amxBeURWbk5XWjdIeHlCX2k5QnlIXzk5WlFFZ0dD?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen, https://news.google.com/read/CBMinwFBVV95cUxNLVFhQjFFdl9qRGZtd1lqMkdDRm5uajM1TmJVVW5EY3dqS3NEcEFFYVloblFBNnFfR3NXZTU1d21oY01rWVVSYWlGMGJZN1dPaE9xaktEWE5ZLUY2dU5zOWZFd2p0VmFaeWJxT0Z5WDlIRUJQVXpsZXBLeVdSVzdld0J1X3BmVVRKZTNUTFBlc1Y3RHNscDQ2UzV3Q3N6UjQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen, https://news.google.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?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3AenKdammers (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Warning about a sloppy line at En-wiki

"What is thought to be a polarization electric field (also known as ambipolar electric field), seems to have been measured."--That is part of the En-wiki article. It is somewhat sloppy, one might say.

Simple-wiki might want to say: "What is thought to be an ambipolar electric field (a kind of polarization electric field), seems to have been measured."--Good luck (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:317:ACB3:D5D9:4A18:8F23:9FCE (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep title "Ambipolar electric field", if

I aim to get back shortly, with a line that should be okay, for the end of the lede.--Keeping the title, (arguably) hinges on what the end of the lede could say. 2001:2020:317:ACB3:49C2:115F:546E:8433 (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It is currently listed for deletion, meaning that an admin will look at it in a week. It isn't my field of science but I found an article dating to 1955. So it likely had been discussed since then. If done properly this can be a nice example of how to explain a scientific phenomenon in simple language. Eptalon (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You might want to take a chill-pill, in regard to year 1955: En-wiki has said (and sourced), for c. one day: 'The earliest experimental characterization of the polar wind came from the 1966 Explorer 33 and especially the 1974 ISIS-2 satellite projects.'--Those who want to educate themselves - go to "Polar wind" at En-wiki and read that, and read its Talk page. 2001:2020:32F:EA20:5917:5148:8296:69D5 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:317:ACB3:49C2:115F:546E:8433 /2001:2020:32F:EA20:5917:5148:8296:69D5 (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Ambipolar electric field (general physics)", will not be searched a lot.
• "Ambipolar electric field", will get more online searches. (This title, is a subset of the
  "Ambipolar electric field (general physics)" topic.
  
  Seems like En-wiki does not have an article (either), about the main topic. And i am fine with that.)
  
  Our three-word title is short, simple, and barely okay. (And i am fine, with that too.) 2001:2020:323:D3CA:446A:FEEC:D94A:7361 (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:317:ACB3:49C2:115F:546E:8433

The 'Ambipolar_electric_field' article should also (simply) say that ... Polar wind ...

"The polar wind or plasma fountain is a ...".--See

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_wind
, for simple ideas.--Good luck, and be bold, while i fix other articles (and wait for required action on the part of y'all). 2001:2020:30D:A266:B459:A45E:E830:8A74 (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

English-wiki's article was merged into article ...

In 2024, merged into Polar wind (article) at En-wiki.--Our article seems okay for now. 46.15.100.181 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Please move (from article,) to Talk page

"The existence of ambipolar electric field [in different places], was hypothesized (suggested) in 1955".

Please move to Talk page, if you can find any reasonable justification.--Please also move the largely similar sentences/periods that follow.

Even better, but not 'very realistic': Give a second-opinion if the source (largely) covers (or does not cover)/references the 'quoted' info, above.--If i remember correctly, the Polar wind article at En-wiki 'uses the 1920s' (and i have not re-read if the context is also suggesting 'earlier than the 1920s').--If our information is misinformed/wrong - then that misinformation should be moved to talk page (or removed entirely).--I feel that there is a fair chance, that the 'quote' is fake news et cetera (that started out as a Good-faith edit).--Anyone has my support to move the 'quote' (but remember to state a reason/justification) - and i will later try to add 'my' justification, on the Talk page.--Good luck (while i fix other articles, mostly). 2001:2020:323:EFC5:2C1F:5E33:543B:308F (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

(The '1920s thing' might be something i have read on the relevant Talk page at En-wiki.) 2001:2020:323:EFC5:2C1F:5E33:543B:308F (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

vocabulary

"These three (kinds of ions, or) ion species reach supersonic (speeds or) velocities above 7000km altitude." 1) The word "species" seems unusual here, and most of our readers probably only know it in terms of biology. Is there some reason it is used here? 2) I prefer "speed" to "velocity": the latter is simply speed plus direction, but direction does not seem to be relevant here. "Speed" is a pretty basic word, whereas "velocity," though Latinate and thus "accessible" to many non-native readers, is not basic. Should we remove "velocities" or maybe change which word is in parentheses? Kdammers (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The current version will not upset experts of natural science.--Experts of natural science have already 'saved the bacon' of this article. Now it is barely passable (and i don't have much of a problem with that.)--If i remember correctly, the words are from the chemical professor who has (largely) curated "Polar wind" at En-wiki.--Of course i have put "my" simplification in parenthesis.--Food for thought: If we are going to treat (on this website), experts of Natural Science - the way we have always done, then we will loose contact with them relatively quickly, like we 'always' do.--I feel for now, leave the chemistry professor's words - alone for now. (And make the simplifications, in parenthesis.)--Speeds versus velocity? If anyone removes "velocity" from that context, then another one will ask for Deletion of the article. Why? Well, i will not contribute to Chemistry-lessons-from-the-sky on Talk pages.--If somebody does not want to waste time, then consider copying 'maps-or-drawing' that shows 'paths-or-FieldLines' of the 'PolarWind-field-thingy'.--Is the previous sentence/period, a hint, about the sentence before that one? Silence. Do the field lines go in one direction, only? Silence.--If anyone found anything helpful in this post, then fine. (If i do not come back to this thread, it quite possibly means that i am fixing other articles, or even this article.) So, good luck! 2001:2020:347:C911:8592:38D:2C3C:F2B6 (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:347:C911:8592:38D:2C3C:F2B6 (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

"Chemistry professor" is the main idea, when i (above) wrote "Chemical professor". (In regard to the latter - i have never met any of those, who were employed by a (real) university.) 2001:2020:345:E46C:F44B:840F:7EE4:CFB4 (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:347:C911:8592:38D:2C3C:F2B6

Update: Because ideas for changes, were discussed on this Talk-page, i had time to add 'the 50,000 km thingy'. That number (or that idea), should be quite helpful to some (or many). 2001:2020:347:C911:C500:95A6:E1EB:D509 (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Measurements of plasma fountain (or polar wind)

' Numerous investigations of the polar wind have launched, including ISIS-2, Dynamics Explorer, the Akebono satellite, and the Polar satellite, covering a variety of altitudes, latitudes, and times relative to the solar cycle. Some of the conclusions include: '

Maybe 'this' should be added to a "Polar wind" (section) of our wiki-article.--Anyone (or i) should maybe consider adding (but without adding complexity). 2001:2020:347:C911:FC13:9CF2:DAD8:727 (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done - 2001:2020:327:EB4E:7919:E33:92E0:7ED3 (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

'Refs' and attribution

(Attribution: From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_wind , version at this time.) 2001:2020:347:C911:FC13:9CF2:DAD8:727 (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

"Forking out, et-cetera"

Anyone - but i will cheer from the bleachers - can start stub (or article), Plasma fountain (or "Polar wind").

And then, that person can copy-and-paste, the following,

"Plasma fountain (or Polar wind) is a part of physics.

The Earth's plasma fountain (or Polar wind). The drawing shows bright yellow (next to the green colored area). That bright yellow area is supposed to show ions (that come from gas in the atmosphere) that are escaping from the atmosphere (into Space). The escape of those oxygen ions and hydrogen ions and helium ions, are part of the plasma fountain effect. The atmosphere near the North pole and South pole, is higher above the surface of Earth, than in other places. The drawing shows the area near the North pole, and the plasma fountain. The drawing does not show the South pole (and gas escaping from there).

[[Image:Plasma fountain.gif|thumb|200px|right|The Earth's ''[[plasma]] fountain'' (or ''[[Polar wind]]''). The drawing shows bright yellow (next to the green colored area). That bright yellow area is supposed to show ions (that come from [[gas]] in the atmosphere) that are escaping from the atmosphere (into Space). The escape of those [[oxygen]] ions and [[hydrogen ion]]s and [[helium]] ions, are part of the ''plasma fountain'' [[effect]]. The atmosphere near the North pole and South pole, is higher above the surface of Earth, than in other places. The drawing shows the area near the North pole, and the ''plasma fountain''. The drawing does not show the South pole (and gas escaping from there).<!--showing ions which flow into space from regions near the Earth's poles. The faint yellow area shown above the north pole is supposed to show gas lost from Earth into space; the green area is the [[aurora borealis]]—or plasma energy pouring back into the atmosphere.--><ref>Plasma fountain [http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/news/9812/solar1.html Source], press release: Carlowicz, Mike; [http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/news/9812/solarwind.html "Solar Wind Squeezes Some of Earth's Atmosphere into Space"], December 1998</ref>]]

Attribution, from simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambipolar_electric_field , version at this time (and date)."

Good luck (while i am fixing other articles), and counting down months, until A hero was called for!, steps up to the plate.--(And after that, maybe many good thing will happen.) 2001:2020:345:E46C:F44B:840F:7EE4:CFB4 (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC) 2001:2020:345:E46C:F44B:840F:7EE4:CFB4 (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Ambipolar electric fields and polarization electric field

@2001:2020:339:ef0e:7dc4:6646:a55a:d6ec Ambipolar electric fields and polarization electric field are different physical phenomena. 😬CsmLrner 18:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

As a consequence of what you are saying, one would think that you should consider putting the tag,
{.{dubious}}
, at the end of the mention about polarization electric field. 2001:2020:333:BC62:8C7E:B156:7A1:A70D (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"Title based on primary ref is too narrow" [at least when the title is: "Earth's ambipolar electric field"]

En-wiki had a title. The title has been merged into "Polar wind" (article at En-wiki).

The following link, is where some threads have been 'archived etc' (and the text that is written below thelink, is copied from that archive) ;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth%27s_ambipolar_electric_field&oldid=1245391365

"Title based on primary ref is too narrow.

The one source for this article says:

• a global electrostatic field between the ionosphere and space (called the ambipolar or polarization field.

That so the topic is "ambipolar or polarization field". The paper title is a consequence of the measurement technology, they measured a static value. The book cited, Ionospheres: Physics, Plasma Physics, and Chemistry by Schunk and Nagy has an index entry:

• ambipolar electric field (see polarization electric field)
  

So I think "Earth's polarization electric field" would be more appropriate. [... 'The chemistry professor'] 23:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

:After watching the excellent videos on the NASA site it becomes clear that "Earth's ambipolar electric field" is something science team lead is trying to position as on the same list as gravity and the magnetic field around Earth. Hence the title of the video "Discovering Earth's Third Global Energy Field". We need an independent secondary source to validate this claim. I'm not saying its wrong, but rather that it may be only part of a bigger story. [... 'The chemistry professor'] 18:49, 12 September 2024"

.--If the above information, is regarded as helpful, then fine. 80.67.37.2 (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"a global electrostatic field between the ionosphere and space".--"Electrostatic" should maybe be in the lede. And if so, it needs a link (or explanation). 2001:2020:341:DD6F:9D15:6EA3:F4D2:F4D8 (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

'Turning down the volume' (or re-wording or tweeking)

"The ambipolar electric field is an electric field responsible for the Polar wind ...".--Something will quite possibly get done within days or weeks (as of the beginning of October 2024). 2001:2020:341:DD6F:FD5E:8296:306F:82E7 (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Re-wording (re: 'altitude-idea')

"an effect in the upper atmosphere, about 150 miles (240 km) above the surface of the earth."--Needs a bit of a re-wording. Anyone who can see 'the problem', might want to reword; Or i might get to it, during the first half of "2024's October". 2001:2020:307:FA61:743A:D102:D5B9:1521 (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Lede

Currently, the article starts out "There is at least one polarization electric field, in the atmosphere of Earth. Research on electric fields, are part of physics. Claims were made (in 2024), that some voltages in an ambipolar electric field in the Ionosphere, were measured (in 2022). The ambipolar electric field is an electric field responsible for the Polar wind (or Plasma fountain), an effect in the upper atmosphere,about 150 miles (240 km) above the surface of the earth." This is backward. The opening sentence should say what PEF is before stating that there is at least one.Kdammers (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can create "Plasma fountain" or "Polar wind" article. (Doing that, would not be a waste of time.)--If anyone were to ask user:Johnjbarton, if he thinks it might have value, if Simple-wiki users were to create a title "Polarization electric field" - then that would be a worthwile question.--The few 'adults when it comes to chemistry expertise', who have commented on the Simple-wiki article (Ambipolar electric field), have hardly touched the article (but given valuable input about its many problems);

Not even chemistry professors were able to suggest (reasonable) ways to keep the English-wiki article.

To all the cut-and-paste people out there, i have advice (or suggestion): Go to the ionosphere (article), and start a section about

'the electric field on the outer limits (of the ionosphere)', and at the end of that section one can list a variety of names used about that field.

That is the only electric field that we (should be) talking about, according to context.

All other 'ambipolar electic fields' within the Earth and within the universe, are of less interest to NASA (as of September/October 2024).

Conflict of interest: If i started a stub about 'a specific finer point about Alchemy' - would i then have a conflict of interest, in trying to keep the article title? Yeah, possibly so.--So it would maybe be best that I did not change that article, and had other people do any reasonable changes.--If anything in this post is helpful to anyone, then fine.--I will be so glad to look over other people's (reasonable) work, about electric fields, in the ionosphere article.--Good luck (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:32F:AD7A:9939:AB9F:74D0:58EB (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)