Talk:Polar wind

Comment
Someone please make this page understandibl!Abce2 (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Abce2

Comment
I don't agree that there's an excessive use of jargon in the article, but it really isn't easy to read. I think that's due in large part to a lot of the text being cut-and-paste from textbooks. I found large tracts of "Magnetospheric plasma sources and losses: final report of the ISSI study ... By Bengt Hultqvist, Marit Oierost, Rudolf Treumann" in the article that were copied word-for-word. I don't even know how to start fixing this page. Giantnegro (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing almost all of this article due to copyright violation
I am removing all but the lead paragraph of this article, because it appears to be a severe copyright violation that can't easily be remedied without simply removing the offending material. All but the lead paragraph of this article began as a verbatim copy of Section 2.2 of the book "Magnetospheric Plasma Sources and Losses: Final Report of the ISSI Study Project on Source and Loss Processes of Magnetospheric Plasma". You can read part of that book here to verify that the text was simply copied. Only minor modifications have been made to the original text since it was copied verbatim, so it rather clearly remains a copyright violation.

The book contains the copyright notice "All Rights Reserved ,© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers, No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner." As far as I can ascertain, there is no evidence on this talk page or elsewhere that such written permission has been obtained. Red Act (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Meanin?
"This paradox consists of the fact that helium in the Earth's atmosphere seems to be produced (via radioactive decay of uranium and thorium) faster than it is lost by escaping from the upper atmosphere. The realization that some helium could be ionized, and therefore escape the earth along open magnetic field lines near the magnetic poles (the 'polar wind'), is one possible solution to the paradox."

After some thought I've decided that this must be saying that the measured rate of helium production was higher than the rate at which it was measured leaving the atmosphere, and they needed to find an explanation for why this was. On first reading, one assumes that it is stating facts: helium in the atmosphere is produced faster than it is escaping, therefore the net amount must be increasing. Except that wouldn't explain how helium escaping from the poles would be a "solution to the paradox", unless the previous statement wasn't a fact. In that light, I can only assume that it means "seems" literally, and it only seems like it was being produced faster than it could escape (how they measured either I have no idea). It could be written a bit clearer anyway. AnnaGoFast (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)