Talk:Ionosphere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Physics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Nobel Prize 2 contradiction 3 Geomagnetic storm 4 'Would be too interesting to have Aurora Borealis at South Pole' 5 High-frequency (HF) 6 Height of the E layer 7 There is no "project" in HAARP!

[edit] Nobel Prize

(William M. Connolley 22:30, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Edward V. Appleton was awarded, by Ernest Rutherford, a Nobel Prize for demonstrating the existence of the ionosphere

Since when did Rutherford get to award Nobel prizes???

That's Ernest Nobel. He changed his name when he became a Knight of Rutherford.

[edit] contradiction

First line of this article: The ionosphere is the part of the atmosphere that is ionized by solar radiation

And then the last sentence of the first paragraph under 'Geophysics': Note: The ionosphere is NOT a layer in the Earth's atmosphere.

So which one is it?

heh. hmm.. might depend on your definition of edge of space? - Omegatron 15:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no contradiction, however the working can be improved. The ionosphere is PART of the atmosphere, but not a LAYER. The new graphic should also help. Bhamer 06:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geomagnetic storm

Maybe "Geomagnetic storm" should be in magnetosphere? (SEWilco 04:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Geomagnetic storm is the correct term, but I did change "Earth's magnetic field" to "Earth's magnetosphere". That is more correct. Bhamer 04:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rephrasing: Maybe the section "Geomagnetic storm" should be in the article magnetosphere? However, maybe it actually should be in the article geomagnetic storm. Of course, there should be mention in this article of its effects upon the ionosphere. (SEWilco 08:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC))

OK. Probably what needs to be done is have the article geomagnetic storm be expanded to include its effect on the ionosphere, have more details on the types and severity of geomagnetic storms, and also the effects of the storms on landline communications systems and power grids. There is a lot more material to cover on geomagnetic storms and a lot of good examples of its effects on power grids. The storms also effect man-made satellites. Bhamer 11:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I stumbled across a source for that. Done. Plenty to update over yonder now. (SEWilco 08:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC))

[edit] 'Would be too interesting to have Aurora Borealis at South Pole'

Ok, I'm slow.. don't understand the above statment. yes, I got lazy, Aurora in southern hemisphere is Aurora Australias. Is this your comment? Bhamer

Looks to me like you understood it. (SEWilco 05:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC))

[edit] High-frequency (HF)

it influences high-frequency (HF) (3kHz-30MHz) radio propagation

Should that lower limit be 3MHz, not 3kHz? Josh Cherry 02:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yup. Radio frequency. Fixed. (SEWilco 08:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Height of the E layer

Kile Baker
The entry describing the change in height of the E layer as being due to solar wind "pressing" on the ionosphere is completely wrong. There may have been some confusion between the effects of the solar wind and the effects of the thermosphere neutral wind. Here is a quote from Hargreaves book about sporadic E.

Typical sporadic-E layers are only a few kilometers thick at mid-latitudes. . . . The main cause is thought to be a change in wind speed with height, a wind shear, which in the presence of the geomagnetic field can act to compress the ionization.

Note that the comment refers: (1) to sporadic-E and not the E layer in general, (2) is talking about wind shear in the ionosphere, not the solar wind, and (3) talks about compressing the layer, not "pressing" it downward.

[edit] There is no "project" in HAARP!

I killed the word "project" in "project HAARP." HAARP is a program, not a project. Besides, it sounds pretty silly to talk about "project high-frequency active auroral research PROGRAM," doesn't it? John Elder 09:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)