Talk:Van Allen radiation belt

what is wrong with only one (per whole article) wikilink

to atmosphere? It was reverted. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. There's nothing wrong with it. You actually coded it wrong so that it didn't appear as a hyperlink—[atmosphere] instead of [[atmosphere]], rendering [atmosphere] instead of atmosphere—but I should have just fixed that. My apologies. What I meant to revert was this edit, which cited a Russian Wikipedia article as a reference. Wikipedia articles (in any language) aren't accepted as reliable sources. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

и мы увидели, что у них нет шерсти
for qoute the ref is:
МБОУ СОШ No 153
«Четвероногие пионеры звёздного пространства»
Беседа-презентация.
Разработала Скворцова Л.И., зав.библиотекой школы 153  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC) 

1 NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space [1] < [Nature volume 515, pages 531–534 (27 November 2014)pdf

2 US free coz brave did fly in radiation belts navigating quickly around particules. Other regimes only tested on animals (what's cruel).

are refs OK ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I think so, but I'll try to review them later today or tomorrow (unless someone else does first). In looking over the content they're supposed to support, I'm a a little confused by the wording,. I think there's a language barrier here, although I'm sure it can be overcome. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

draining the Van Allen belts

This article used to have a section discussing draining / removing the Van Allen belts, but that section was removed 11 November 2019, apparently because it was "non-notable highly speculative dubious proposal, no place on this page".

Because the notability guideline ( WP:NNC ) does not apply to article content, and the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy says "even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient.", I restored that section (reverted).

A few days ago, there was a question on this talk page asking for more information about draining / removing the Van Allen belts. As requested, I added a few more details on that topic (with references!) to the article. (since then, that question was moved to Talk:Van Allen radiation belt/Archive 1#Removal of Van Allen belts ).

Now that section has been deleted again 24 September 2020‎, this time because "As before, very dubious sourcing". While I agree that some of the sources were WP:PRIMARY and not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, it seems to me that there are enough reliable sources discussing draining / removing the Van Allen belts. Many of them focus on one or another particular system for of potentially returning the belts to "normal" more rapidly after natural or artificial events inject far higher-than-normal levels of charged particles, then briefly mention the system could also be used to drain the belts to much lower-than-normal levels while humans or delicate electronics are transiting that region.

Some not yet mentioned are:

• "The atmospheric implications of radiation belt remediation". Annales Geophysicae 2006.
• "U.S. tests ways to sweep space clean of radiation after nuclear attack". Science, 2019.
• "Radiation-Belt Remediation Using Space-Based Antennas and Electron Beams". IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 2019.

Since these are all, as far as I can tell, peer-reviewed and therefore reliable sources (WP:SOURCETYPES), therefore this article should mention the possibility of artificially draining the radiation belts, and what the possible positive and negative effects would be.

Apparently the next step in the WP: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is to discuss it here on the talk page. --DavidCary (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to have some discussion of these proposals in the article. The justification for removal looks a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

VQuakr WP:AGF please, the justification as noted in the edit summary for removal was dubious sourcing (a policy based argument), DavidCary acknowledges these primary sources have no place on wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 06:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't an AGF violation. Sounds like we agree coverage is warranted so I've reverted the blanking and tagged it for improvement. VQuakr (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

My justification was policy based on dubious sourcing, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you suggested with no justification. Polyamorph (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Right... or was your justification non-notable highly speculative dubious proposal, no place on this page, the edit summary that was the basis of my characterization? Of course there was no AGF violation either way, but feel free to keep digging. VQuakr (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability is wikipedia policy, it is NOT WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dubious sourcing, also noted in my edit summary is also policy based and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Note the dubious sourcing was worse in the first diff than in the second. Furthermore WP:IDONTLIKEIT refers to AFD discussions so isn't even relevant here. Polyamorph (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi DavidCary please remove the dubious sources, and rely on reliable sources only. I'm happy to look over any re-worked drafts for this section if you like. I archived the old talk as it is better to start new discussions rather than resurrecting years/decades old threads (per WP:ARCHIVE). Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 06:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

unclear

I dont understand this sentence: "... had discovered a transient, third radiation belt, which was observed for four weeks until it was destroyed by a powerful, interplanetary shock wave from the Sun." - Why and how was this third belt destroyed? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.71.15.179 (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

really, the belt was destroyedd, not the probe?? Now that the text had been changed (without ansering here!), i am sure it is wrong!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.71.8.252 (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Needs rationalizing?

usually if we refer to the VA radiation belts we mean the Earth's RB's. A more generic title for this entry seems better and refer to another entry on the VA RBs? Also technical issues need addressing 2001:981:A29:1:70CF:4F2:36DC:5E18 (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Bruins

The existance of the second belt was already discussed in 1938 in the PhD thesis of Evert Marie Bruins (Cosmische stralen in het aardmagnetisch veld). Because this was written in Dutch and the second World War started this was not noticed and the belt was rediscovered later. Hobbema (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Apollo Astronauts & The Van Allen Belts

I tweaked the introduction with... Apollo Astronauts going through the Van Allen Belts received a very low and non-harmful dose of radiation. 2601:582:C480:BCD0:8C3F:C390:171D:9C49 (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Research - bias towards RBSP

The research section of the article only discusses on the Van Allen Probes (RBSP) mission in any detail. There are a number of other missions (eg ARASE, GOES) that observe the radiation belts, and also non-scientific constellations such as GPS that provide data on radiation belt electrons. I think it would be good to include some discussion of these other missions, and perhaps also mention that CubeSats are increasingly being used in radiation belts research.

I'm also not sure that Voyager observations of non-Earth radiation belts are relevant to this page - thoughts?

(I'm new to wikipedia editing so don't just want to blindly start modifying the article - sorry if these questions are a bit basic!) SpaceHG (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Flux values - add discussion of Kennel-Petschek theoretical limit?

The maximum flux values of radiation belt electrons are discussed here - it could be relevant to mention the theoretical limit to 100's keV electrons predicted by Kennel & Petschek (1996), which has received recent observational validation from Olifer et. al. (2021, 2022) and applied to simulations by Hua, Bortnik and Ma (2022) to predict maximum electron fluxes at a range of energies. SpaceHG (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)