Talk:Earth's ambipolar electric field

Free energy-ish

So what does this mean you can recover energy from an altitude differential? Like via the Lorentz force ? 212.208.24.114 (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You'd need a space tower or the like to hold the cable. And you'd then need a way of collecting the charge. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Collinson paper is WP:TOONEW

The only source is not a new primary reference and as such this topic is not encyclopedic. See also WP:PSTS. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this content should be merged into Polar wind. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a new thread about Merge.--It is the fifth thread on this page (as of year 2024). 2001:2020:307:9EF5:1833:1F32:9485:3088 (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

:The following has been copied from another thread; copy done by me, an IP-user:

"Please discuss the merge option on Talk:Polar_wind#Proposed_merge_of_Earth's_ambipolar_electric_field_into_Polar_wind Johnjbarton (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)"

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. Johnjbarton (talk) 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. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

"polarization electric field", seems to have an okay sound, based on what user:Johnjbarton is saying.--Also, measurements were only done in the altitude-range c. 200 km to c. 700 km. I don't have a good feeling about using the word Earth, in this context (no matter which Grammy Award winner might do soundtrack for nice videos);

(Another thing, there were 'hallelujah moments' prior to the 'cold fusion fanclub' getting its 'led-zeppelin' moment - back in the day.--And there was a British (?) astronomer, who was in a conversation about a panorama view that had sheep in the hills, and the astronomer had to chip away, 'common knowledge' about the statistics about the sheep in view, and in the end the astronomer said that he could only state the color of half of each 'sheep'. If one can only see half of an individual 'sheep', then be careful about painting the rest of the picture, on basis of one's assumptions.--Thanks to user:Johnjbarton, for his effort about the topic of the wiki-article. 2001:2020:307:9EF5:1833:1F32:9485:3088 (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Meaningful, but

"The potential drop from 250 to 768 kilometres".--Please consider switching the two numbers - the one with the other.--(I will pass, when it comes to that honor.) 2001:2020:307:9EF5:F44B:289:5E97:735D (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence on the Polar wind page. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Well done! 2001:2020:307:9EF5:1833:1F32:9485:3088 (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge (this wiki-article into "Polar wind")

"I think this content should be merged into Polar wind", was said earlier on this page. Thoughts? 2001:2020:307:9EF5:1833:1F32:9485:3088 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss the merge option on Talk:Polar_wind#Proposed_merge_of_Earth's_ambipolar_electric_field_into_Polar_wind Johnjbarton (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge (of useful information) has largely been completed, it seems.--For now, no one has nominated that other article, for Delete. (Caution: If one has not lined up resources against wiki-lawyering, then that article could possibly get kept. I would actually like to see that article getting USERFY. The second-best thing would be Delete.) 2001:2020:307:9EF5:29BA:D6ED:6246:2A77 (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Main article (Polar wind)

{{. Main|Polar wind}}.

The above thingy, should likely be placed in our wiki-article.--Thanks. 2001:2020:31B:D1A2:DD2C:839B:26E8:9AF1 (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done 2001:2020:31B:A274:F1AE:D30:AB94:223C (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Red-link

Polarization electric field.
What should that redirect to? Regards! 2001:2020:331:9A41:C6B:E252:C84F:90BF (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)